Content uploaded by Lei Song
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lei Song on Mar 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
0148-2963/Published by Elsevier Inc.
How counterfeit dominance affects luxury fashion brand owners’
perceptions: A cross-cultural examination
Lei Song
a
,
*
, Yan Meng
b
,
*
, Hua Chang
c
, Wenjing Li
d
, Kang Tan (Frank)
e
a
Business Program, The Pennsylvania State University Abington, Abington, PA, USA
b
Marketing Department, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France
c
Marketing Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
d
Department of Management and Marketing, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX, USA
e
ACIP Technology Ltd. Co., Canada
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Attitude functions
Culture
Luxury brands
Counterfeits
Purchase intention
Perceived quality
ABSTRACT
Prior literature has provided little insight into how counterfeit dominance—consumers’ perception that coun-
terfeit brands possess over 50% of market share for authentic and counterfeit brands combined—inuences
luxury fashion brand owners’ perceptions of their brands across cultures. Our research shows that counterfeit
dominance negatively affects the perceived quality and purchase intention of luxury fashion brands across
product categories for Anglo-American, but not for Asian, consumers. A social-adjustive attitude underlies this
difference. Therefore, counterfeit dominance has stronger negative impacts on luxury fashion brand owners’
perceptions of their brands for those with a weak (Anglo-Americans), but not with a strong (Asians), social-
adjustive attitude. Perceived quality mediates the effect of counterfeit dominance on luxury fashion brand
owners’ purchase intention in different cultures. This investigation contributes to both theory and practice
through examining an understudied phenomenon and also offering strategies to offset the inimical effects of
counterfeit dominance.
1. Introduction
Counterfeit products dominate the marketplace in many countries
(The Wall Street Journal, 2019; Department of Homeland Security,
2020). For example, up to 60% percent of medications in Asian and
African countries are counterfeit (Taverriti-Fortier et al., 2015). Also,
when making online investigative test purchases, the International Anti-
Counterfeiting Coalition received approximately 80% counterfeit items
(International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, 2019). Luxury fashion
brands are no exception. According to Harvard Business Review (2019),
counterfeit luxury fashion brands account for 60–70 percent of the $4.5
trillion in total counterfeit trade, which represent one-quarter of total
sales in luxury fashion goods.
Despite the prevalence of counterfeit products, no research has
empirically examined the role of counterfeits in affecting consumers’
purchase of authentic luxury fashion brands in a cross-country context.
Prior work on counterfeit consumption has primarily focused on either
consumers’ counterfeit purchasing behavior or the effect of counterfeit
offerings on luxury fashion brands in a single culture (e.g., Andr´
e et al.,
2019; Bian et al., 2016; Ha & Lennon, 2006). Also, extant investigations
of the effect of counterfeit items on consumers’ purchase of authentic
luxury fashion brands have obtained inconsistent ndings. For example,
counterfeit presence has been shown to have negative (e.g., Commuri,
2009; Fournier, 1998; Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999), nonsignicant (Bian
& Moutinho, 2011; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000), positive (Baghi et al.,
2016; Romani et al., 2012), and both negative and positive (Qian, 2014)
impacts on consumers’ perceptions of authentic luxury fashion brands.
Moreover, the limited cross-cultural studies on counterfeit products
have chiey examined cultural differences in consumers’ perceptions
toward counterfeit goods (Harvey & Walls, 2003; Lee & Workman,
2011) and placed less emphasis on understanding the role of cultural
differences in the effect of counterfeit products on consumers’ percep-
tions and purchase intention of authentic luxury fashion brands.
In an attempt to ll the foregoing research gap, the present paper
examined the following research question: How does counterfeit domi-
nance (which we dene as consumers’ perception that counterfeit
* Corresponding authors at: Business Program, The Pennsylvania State University Abington, 1600 Woodland Rd, Abington, PA 19001, USA (L. Song). Marketing
Department, Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12 rue Pierre S´
emard, Grenoble 38000, France (Y. Mang).
E-mail addresses: LeiSong@psu.edu (L. Song), Yan.Meng@grenoble-em.com (Y. Meng), chang@towson.edu (H. Chang), liw1@sfasu.edu (W. Li).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.046
Received 15 March 2020; Received in revised form 17 February 2021; Accepted 20 February 2021
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
2
brands have more than 50% of the market share for the combined sales
of authentic and counterfeit brand products) affect brand owners’ per-
ceptions and purchase intention of authentic luxury fashion brands
across cultures? Admittedly, the dominance of counterfeit offerings has
a detrimental impact on authentic luxury fashion brands in many Asian
countries, as well as the United States (International Chamber of Com-
merce, 2017). Therefore, understanding the effect of counterfeit domi-
nance in Asian (e.g., Chinese) and U.S. (e.g., Anglo-American; Hofstede,
2001) cultures would provide signicant insights for developing stra-
tegies to address counterfeiting efforts in luxury fashion brand
categories.
This study also partially answered Wilcox et al.’s (2009) call for
research into the impact of attitude functions—especially social-
adjustive attitudes—on consumers’ purchase intention of luxury
fashion brands in a cross-cultural context. Specically, we examined
how counterfeit dominance affects consumers’ purchase intention of
authentic luxury fashion brands across Western and Eastern cultures.
Because the U.S. and Chinese cultures are two major luxury fashion
brand markets and are also relevant representations of Western and
Eastern cultures (Bian & Forsythe, 2012), we recruited Anglo-American
and Chinese subjects in the U.S. and China, respectively. To nd further
evidence for our hypotheses, we replicated our studies across Anglo-
Americans and Asian-Americans in the U.S. Through four experi-
mental studies, we found that counterfeit dominance negatively affects
(vs. does not affect) Anglo-American (vs. Asian) brand owners’
perceived quality of their authentic luxury brands, which leads to lower
(vs. no difference in) purchase intention of authentic luxury brands.
Social-adjustive attitudes were identied as the underlying driver of the
differential effect of counterfeit dominance between the two cultural
groups. Differences found within and across the two cultures provide
practical implications for luxury fashion brand manufacturers to tailor
their marketing campaigns to consumers in dissimilar cultures.
To the best of our knowledge, this research is the rst to examine the
effect of counterfeit dominance on luxury fashion brand owners’ per-
ceptions toward authentic brands across different cultures. Because
luxury fashion brand owners are likely to purchase their brands
repeatedly (Gorzelany, 2011), understanding how counterfeit domi-
nance affects luxury fashion brand owners’ perceptions of their brands
across cultures should be benecial for authentic luxury fashion brand
manufacturers.
2. Literature review, theoretical background, and hypothesis
development
2.1. Attitude functions and reference groups toward the luxury fashion
brand purchase
Functional theories of attitude propose that an attitude can serve
different social functions, such as allowing people to express themselves
(i.e., value-expressive function) or to t into social groups (i.e., social-
adjustive function; Holmqvist et al., 2020; Katz, 1960; Smith et al.,
1956; Shavitt, 1989). Attitudes that serve a social-adjustive function
help sustain social relationships (Smith et al., 1956). When consumers
purchase products for this function, they do so to receive approval from
their peers. However, attitudes that serve a value-expressive function
help people express themselves (Katz, 1960). Consumers with a value-
expressive attitude consume products to convey their beliefs and
values to others. Shavitt (1989) suggested that consumers’ attitudes
toward luxury fashion brands may serve as either a value-expressive or a
social-adjustive function or both. Turunen and Laaksonen (2011)’s
research revealed that luxury fashion brands and their counterfeits are
different in psychological and sociological meanings. Specically, lux-
ury fashion brands have social functions and personal purposes, but
counterfeit products primarily serve social functions.
When purchasing luxury fashion brands, consumers with different
attitude functions toward luxury fashion brands adopt dissimilar
reference groups. Reference groups have been shown to affect con-
sumers’ product and brand purchase decisions (Bearden & Etzel, 1982).
According to Bearden et al. (1989), compared to consumers with a
value-expressive attitude, those with a social-adjustive attitude are more
likely to buy luxury fashion brands that their peer groups (e.g., friends)
accept. Therefore, whether peer groups accept or reject individuals’
luxury fashion brand plays a signicant role in their buying decisions
(Grewal et al., 2004; Shavitt, 1990; Wilcox et al., 2009).
Cultural differences also play an important role in consumers’ ten-
dency to adopt different attitude functions and reference groups vis-`
a-vis
luxury fashion brand purchases. For example, Bian and Forsythe (2012)
asserted that a social-adjustive attitude has a more important role in
luxury fashion brand purchases for Asian than for American consumers.
Because consumers with a strong (weak) social-adjustive attitude are
more (less) likely to adopt their peer group as their reference group for
luxury fashion brand purchases, perceptions of luxury fashion brands for
Asian (American) consumers should be less (more) likely to be affected
by people outside their peer groups.
2.2. Luxury fashion brand and counterfeit consumption across cultures
Research on luxury fashion brand consumption in a cross-cultural
context is relatively recent. Vigneron and Johnson (2004) developed a
scale to measure brand luxury dimensions based on an Australian stu-
dent sample. Using consumers from Taiwan to validate the scale,
Christodoulides et al. (2009) found that Asian luxury consumers are
primarily impacted by Confucian culture and are interdependent and
group based. Kapferer and Florence’s (2019) work revealed that market
penetration has a similar effect on luxury desirability and awareness for
Eastern and Western consumers. The results of their studies also showed
that compared with perceived richness, self-made success is a more
relevant antecedent of materialism in both Eastern and Western coun-
tries. However, the effect is even more marked in China and Japan than
in Western countries (Kapferer & Florence, 2019).
As luxury fashion brands gain increased market penetration globally,
so does the consumption of counterfeit products. Prior research has
examined the impact of culture on counterfeit items. Kwong et al. (2009)
found that Chinese and Western consumers hold different attitudes to-
ward counterfeit offerings and views about the social cost of counter-
feiting and the social benet of counterfeits reproduction. Country of
origin also impacts the purchase intention of counterfeit goods. For
example, Chapa et al. (2006) observed that this construct has a stronger
inuence on U.S. than Mexican consumers. The current investigation
advances the foregoing stream of literature on counterfeit products
across cultures.
2.3. Counterfeit dominance and consumers’ attitude functions and
reference groups
Although extant research has not examined the effect of counterfeit
dominance on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intention of
authentic luxury fashion brands, scholars have found inconsistent evi-
dence regarding counterfeit offerings (in general) on consumers’ per-
ceptions and purchase intention of authentic luxury fashion brands. For
example, some studies determined that availability of counterfeit
products damage perceptions of exclusivity and uniqueness and thus
subsequently reduce consumers’ purchase intention of authentic brands
(Commuri, 2009; Fournier, 1998; Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999). Other
investigations, however, discerned that consumers experience no
decrease in perceived value, satisfaction, or purchase intention of
authentic brands after exposure to counterfeit items (Bian & Moutinho,
2011; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000). Moderating factors of effects of
counterfeit products on consumers’ perceptions have also been
explored. That work determined that whether counterfeit goods negate
consumers’ perceptions of their authentic luxury fashion brands de-
pends on brand popularity (Romani et al., 2012) and brand prestige
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
3
(Qian, 2014).
To clarify the above inconsistencies, the current research introduces
a new concept of counterfeit dominance. Similar to market domi-
nance—which occurs when certain products, brands, services, or rms
have a market share larger than or equal to 50% (Melnik et al., 2008)—
counterfeit dominance takes place when certain counterfeit products
achieve more than 50% of total market share, including the authentic
luxury brands and competitive counterfeit goods combined. Our un-
dertaking focused on consumers’ perceptions of counterfeit dominance,
because precise measurement of counterfeits’ market share is infeasible:
most counterfeit trading is opaque (Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2007).
Counterfeit dominance may affect consumers’ perceptions of
authentic luxury fashion brands. According to Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), counterfeit trademark goods (or
counterfeits) are dened as “any goods, including packaging, bearing
without authorization a trademark that is identical to the trademark
validly registered in respect of such goods or that cannot be distin-
guished in its essential aspects from such a trademark, which thereby
infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question under the
law of the country of importation” (World Trade Organization, 1994).
Consumers usually cannot quickly discern the difference between
counterfeit and authentic products, as they typically appear almost
identical (Staake et al., 2012). Therefore, if counterfeit items are present
but do not reach the threshold of dominance, consumers whose refer-
ence group comprises outsiders may believe the chances that their own
luxury fashion brands will be mistakenly considered as counterfeit are
low. However, when consumers perceive that counterfeit goods domi-
nate the market, they may be concerned that outsiders (e.g., strangers on
the street) will view their luxury fashion brands as counterfeit. This is
because outsiders do not usually possess sufcient information to judge
the brand’s authenticity. Such an effect, however, should not hold for
consumers who adopt peers as their reference group, as peers usually
have more information than outsiders regarding the authenticity of a
brand owned by fellow consumers.
2.4. Counterfeit dominance and perceived quality
Our research specically examined perceived quality because it is an
essential part of consumer-based brand equity of luxury fashion brands
(Liu et al., 2017) and positively affects consumers’ purchase intention
(Parguel et al., 2016). Perceived quality is dened as the overall sub-
jective judgment about one’s expectation of quality (Mitra & Golder,
2006). Unlike objective quality, perceived quality is highly subjective
and can be affected by specic consumption settings (Zeithaml, 1988),
such as purchasing luxury fashion brands. Scholars have found that in
the luxury consumption context, user-designed luxury brands have
reduced perceived quality, which negatively affects the desirability of
those brands (Fuchs et al., 2013). Perceived quality also mediates the
impact of price display on consumers’ brand attitude and desirability of
luxury fashion brands (Parguel et al., 2016).
The effect of counterfeit dominance on consumers’ perceptions of
luxury fashion brands vis-`
a-vis different cultures depends on other
attitude functions and reference groups. Because we suggest that con-
sumers with a strong (weak) social-adjustive attitude are more (less)
likely to adopt their peer groups as a reference group for luxury fashion
brand purchases, perceptions of luxury fashion brands for Asian (Anglo-
American) owners should be less (more) likely to be affected by people
outside their peer groups. Moreover, we aver that counterfeit dominance
raises luxury fashion brand owners’ concern that outsiders rather than
peers will regard their brands as counterfeit. As such, Asian (Anglo-
American) owners should be less (more) concerned that their brands are
considered as low-quality counterfeits. Furthermore, those with a strong
(weak) social-adjustive attitude are less (more) likely to engage in high
self-monitoring that leads to a strong focus on product quality (Snyder &
DeBono, 1985; Wilcox et al., 2009). Accordingly, Asian (Anglo-
American) brand owners are less (more) likely to observe quality-related
cues which infer that their brands are low quality when outsiders easily
misperceive these brands as low-quality counterfeits. Thus, we argue
that counterfeit dominance should negatively impact Anglo-American,
but not Asian, luxury fashion brand owners’ perceived quality of their
authentic brands.
H1a: Counterfeit dominance negatively impacts Anglo-American
brand owners’ perceived quality of their authentic luxury fashion
brands.
H1b: Counterfeit dominance does not negatively impact Asian brand
owners’ perceived quality of their authentic luxury fashion brands.
2.5. Counterfeit dominance and purchase intention
Purchase intention is a critical construct in existing counterfeit
research (Yoo & Lee, 2012). For example, Marticotte and Arcand (2017)
found that Schadenfreude (i.e., the pleasure felt in reaction to another’s
misfortune) positively correlates with purchase intention of counter-
feits. Yoo and Lee (2012) suggested that prior experience with authentic
luxury fashion brands negatively affects consumers’ purchase intention
of counterfeit offerings, but prior experience with counterfeit items does
not inuence purchase intention of authentic luxury fashion brands.
Past research has also shown that perceived quality predicts pur-
chase intention (Parguel et al., 2016). Liu et al. (2017) further observed
that perceived quality positively affects consumers’ purchase intention
of luxury fashion brands. As we suggest that counterfeit dominance has a
stronger negative impact on Anglo-American than Asian luxury fashion
brand owners’ perceived quality of their authentic brands, we expect
purchase intention to demonstrate a similar pattern. Therefore, we
propose the following:
H2a: Counterfeit dominance negatively impacts Anglo-American
brand owners’ purchase intention of their authentic luxury fashion
brands.
H2b: Counterfeit dominance does not negatively impact Asian brand
owners’ purchase intention of their authentic luxury fashion brands.
As we discussed earlier, cultural differences in consumers’ luxury
preferences partly originate from differences in their social-adjustive
attitude toward luxury fashion brands. Specically, individuals with a
strong (weak) social-adjustive attitude are more (less) likely to adopt
their peers as the reference group for luxury fashion brand purchases
and are, therefore, less likely to be affected by outsiders. Such reference
group differences—combined with different sensitivities to quality-
related cues—suggest that the purchase intention of luxury fashion
brands for owners with a strong (weak) social-adjustive attitude should
be less (more) likely to be affected by counterfeit dominance. Thus, we
posit the following:
H3: Counterfeit dominance negatively impacts the purchase inten-
tion for brand owners with a weak social-adjustive attitude but not
for those with a strong social-adjustive attitude.
As we mentioned before, past research has shown that perceived
quality predicts purchase intention (Parguel et al., 2016). Also, Liu et al.
(2017) further observed that perceived quality positively affects con-
sumers’ purchase intention of luxury fashion brands. Thus, we hypoth-
esize the following:
H4a: Perceived quality mediates the effect of counterfeit dominance
on Anglo-American brand owners’ purchase intention of authentic
luxury fashion brands.
H4b: Perceived quality does not mediate the effect of counterfeit
dominance on Asian brand owners’ purchase intention of authentic
luxury fashion brands.
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
4
2.6. Spillover effect of counterfeit dominance
Past research has shown that consumers’ perceptions in one product
category affect their perceptions in other categories of the same brand.
For example, Erdem and Winer (1999) found that brand preferences for
different categories of the same brand are correlated. Erdem (1998) also
suggested that consumers’ experience in one category may affect their
quality perceptions in another category of the same brand.
We argue that the negative impact of counterfeit dominance on
perceived quality and purchase intention in one category (e.g., sun-
glasses) will be transferred to other categories (e.g., scarves) of the same
brand. Scholars have revealed that negative spillover of consumption
experience may occur among different product categories of the same
brand (Lei et al., 2008). As mentioned before, counterfeit dominance
should have a stronger negative impact on Anglo-American than on
Asian luxury fashion brand owners’ perceived quality and purchase
intention of their authentic brands. We propose that this effect will spill
over to different product categories of the same brand (see Fig. 1 for a
detailed conceptual model). Therefore, we propose the following:
H5a: Counterfeit dominance negatively affects perceived quality and
purchase intention of products across the authentic brands’ cate-
gories for Anglo-American brand owners.
H5b: Counterfeit dominance does not negatively affect the perceived
quality and purchase intention of products across the authentic
brands’ categories for Asian brand owners.
3. Pretests
To examine the realistic aspect of counterfeits in the marketplace and
its perceived dominance, we surveyed 149 participants (M
age
=36, 28%
females) on Mturk. We did so to understand how consumers perceive the
issue of counterfeit dominance and how many of them have ordered an
authentic brand but received a counterfeit. We adapted a six-item scale
(
α
=0.89) from previous research (Eisend, 2019; Hussain et al., 2017;
Marcketti & Shelley, 2009; Mavlanova & Benbunan-Fich, 2010; Singh &
Kumar, 2017), where consumers responded on a 7-point Likert scale (1
=strongly disagree; 7 =strongly agree) to statements such as, “Counterfeit
luxury goods (e.g., counterfeit luxury bags or apparels) is a pervasive
issue in the U.S.,” and “Luxury goods have been counterfeited a lot in the
U.S.”. Participants strongly believed that counterfeit luxury brands are
prevalent in the U.S. (M =5.15, SD =1.05); the mean value is signi-
cantly greater than the mid-point of 4 (t =12.87, p <.001). Also, 53.2%
of participants had experience buying an authentic brand but receiving a
counterfeit instead.
We conducted another pretest to select brands suitable for our
research. The luxury fashion brands with the highest sales in the world
are Louis Vuitton ($47.2 billion), Chanel ($37 billion), Herm`
es ($31
billion), Gucci ($25.3 billion), Rolex ($8.4 billion), Cartier ($6 billion),
Burberry ($4.7 billion), Dior (4.7 billion), Saint Laurent/Yves Saint
Laurent ($3.6 billion), and Prada ($3.5 billion) (Kerr-Crowley, 2019). In
our investigation, we planned to select the top ve brands in the fashion
industry: Louis Vuitton (LV), Chanel, Herm`
es, Gucci, and Burberry.
However, we had difculty nding a gender-neutral product from
Chanel. To reduce gender bias, we excluded the brand from our stimuli
choices, thus using four well-known brands in the study.
We also recruited 228 participants (40% females; M
age
=39) from
the U.S. on Mturk to test their familiarity with the brands of LV, Herm`
es,
Gucci, and Burberry (i.e., “How familiar are you with each brand?”) and
how much they believed the brands had been counterfeited (i.e., “Please
rate in your opinion the degree to which the brand has been counter-
feited”). Both questions used seven-point Likert scales (1 =not familiar at
all/has not been counterfeited at all; 7 =very familiar/has been counter-
feited a lot). We found that participants were familiar with all four brands
(M
LV
=4.82, SD
LV
=1.55; M
Herm`
es
=4.74, SD
Herm`
es
=1.76; M
Gucci
=
5.07, SD
Gucci
=1.49; M
Burberry
=5.01, SD
Burberry
=1.54), and believed
that all the brands were counterfeited to a high extent (M
LV
=5.20, SD
LV
=1.49; M
Herm`
es
=4.83, SD
Herm`
es
=1.49; M
Gucci
=5.36, SD
Gucci
=1.45;
M
Burberry
=5.02, SD
Burberry
=1.51).
4. Study 1
4.1. Design
We rst tested H2a and H2b (whether cultural differences exist in the
effect of counterfeit dominance on consumers’ purchase intention of
authentic luxury fashion brands). We thus conducted a 2 (Cultural Group:
Chinese luxury product owners in China vs. Anglo-American luxury
product owners in the U.S.) ×2 (Counterfeit: absence vs. dominance)
between-subjects design. Also, we sought to rule out possible con-
founding variables (i.e., brand familiarity, emotional attachment) that
might play a moderating role in the interaction effect on predicting
purchase intention.
4.2. Respondents, procedures, and measures
We successfully recruited 155 luxury product owners from China and
the U.S. online. Participants completed the questionnaire in exchange
for a $5 (or 4 CNY) reward. Both questionnaires for Chinese and the U.S.,
were written in English. Participants from China were all Chinese citi-
zens (n =69; 66% female, M
age
=28.65); those in the U.S., all Anglo-
Americans (n =86; 38% female, M
age
=36.76). We asked participants
in China to identify their ethnicity and self report their English pro-
ciency; only those who conrmed that they were Chinese and able to
understand the questionnaire in English could proceed to the study. The
average participant owned eight luxury products.
All participants were shown a white-colored, gender-neutral Herm`
es
cap with a price of $499 ($499 was used across all conditions, thus
Fig. 1. The role of attitude functions, culture, and perceived quality in the counterfeit dominance effect.
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
5
controlling for price). They were then instructed to imagine that they
owned this cap and were asked to write down two occasions in which
they might wear this cap. Because luxury consumption is situational
(Chandon, Laurent, & Valette-Florence, 2016), we essayed to ensure that
all participants across conditions imagined the situations in which they
were using this luxury fashion brand.
Next, participants in the counterfeit-dominant condition were
instructed to read an article which mentioned that the Herm`
es cap had
been heavily counterfeited in the market. This manipulation was pre-
tested using fty-six participants (M
age
=55 with 36% of females)
recruited on Mturk. They read the identical report from Consumerist.
comand were asked to recall the information presented in the report (i.
e., “According to the article, what percentage of the Burberry scarves
were counterfeited?”) and the credibility of the report (i.e., “How much
did you believe in the information reported on Consumerist.com?”),
along with their opinion of the counterfeit dominance of Burberry
scarves (i.e., “How much do you believe that the counterfeited Burberry
scarves were dominant in the market?”). The preceding items were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 =not at all and 7 =very
much. Ninety-three percent of participants recalled that at least 50% of
the Burberry scarves on the market were counterfeit, which was in line
with our counterfeit dominance denition. T-test results showed that
participants trusted the information in the Consumerist.com report (M
=5.55; SD =0.98), as the mean response score was signicantly higher
than the mid-point of 4 (t =11.75; p <.001). Moreover, participants
believed that counterfeited Burberry scarves dominated the market (M
Fig. 2. Stimulus: Counterfeit Herm`
es scarf (Study 1).
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
6
=5.75; SD =1.37), with the mean response score signicantly higher
than the mid-point of 4 (t =9.50; p <.001). Shown in Fig. 2 are the
stimuli.
Participants in both conditions then rated their purchase intention of
the Herm`
es cap: “When I need a new product, the Herm`
es brand will be
my rst choice”—(1 =strongly disagree and 7 =strongly agree; Bian &
Forsythe, 2012). To ensure that our results were not affected by other
variables, we also assessed brand reputation (six items, such as “Herm´
es
is a strong, reliable brand”; Walsh & Beatty, 2007), brand knowledge,
product knowledge, and knowledge on the luxury industry (three items,
such as “I consider myself an expert on the Herm`
es brand”; Flynn &
Goldsmith, 1999), brand involvement (two items, such as “I attach great
importance to Herm`
es”; Voss et al., 2003), brand familiarity (i.e., “How
familiar are you with the Herm`
es brand?”), and emotional attachment to
the brand (i.e., “Please indicate how well each of the following words
describe your feelings about the brand of Herm`
es”; ten words were lis-
ted, including affectionate and attached; Thomson et al., 2005). All
questions were measured using 7-point Likert scales, where 1 =a very
low value and 7 =a very high value of. At the conclusion of the study,
participants were asked about the purpose of the studyand to provide
demographics.
4.3. Results
A two-way ANOVA revealed a marginally signicant two-way
interaction effect between cultural group and counterfeit dominance
on purchase intention (F(1, 151) =2.83, p <.10). Anglo-American
participants were signicantly less likely to buy the authentic Herm`
es
brand when they learned that the Herm`
es cap was heavily counterfeited
in the market (M =5.14, SD =1.48) than those who were unaware of
this piece of information (M =5.72, SD =0.88; F(1,151) =3.85, p =
.05). Therefore, H2a received support. However, that difference in
purchase intention was not observed among Chinese consumers (F
(1,151) =0.25, p >.6), thus supporting H2b. Summarized in Fig. 3 are
the results of Study 1.
Brand reputation, brand knowledge, product knowledge, knowledge
on the luxury industry, brand involvement, brand familiarity, and
emotional attachment to the brand did not play a moderating role in the
interaction between cultural group and counterfeit dominance on pur-
chase intention of the authentic brand. Upon specifying a condence
interval of 95% with 10,000 bootstraps resamples, the regression ana-
lyses showed no signicant indirect effect of the proposed variables on
the interaction on purchase intention. All p’s >0.1 (Hayes, 2008; Model
3). None of the participants correctly guessed the purpose of this study.
4.4. Discussion
Findings in Study 1 indicated that consumers’ perception of coun-
terfeit dominance in the marketplace signicantly decreased purchase
intention of the authentic brand for Anglo-Americans but not for Chi-
nese consumers. The results demonstrated how counterfeit dominance
interacts with culture in inuencing consumers’ purchase of authentic
luxury fashion brands. This interaction effect was not dependent on such
relevant factors as brand knowledge or emotional attachments to the
brand. However, Study 1 did not indicate why counterfeit dominance
had a negative effect on consumers’ purchase intention, which is critical
from a marketing standpoint. We addressed this issue in Study 2.
5. Study 2
5.1. Design
The primary purpose of Study 2 was to examine whether perceived
quality for luxury fashion brand owners across cultural groups is
affected differently (H1a and H1b) and the mediating role of perceived
quality in the observed counterfeit dominance effect (H4a and H4b).
Therefore, we conducted a 2 (Cultural Group: Chinese vs. Anglo-Amer-
ican) ×2 (Counterfeit: absence vs. dominance) between-subjects design
and measured the brand’s perceived quality.
5.2. Respondents and procedures
Sixty-three Anglo-American undergraduate students from a large
private university on the east coast of the U.S. and 75 Chinese under-
graduate students from a university in mainland China participated in
this study in exchange for course extra credit. The questionnaire for
Chinese participants was translated from English to Chinese and then
back-translated into English by two multilingual professionals to ensure
accuracy. Data collection resulted in 60 valid responses from U.S. par-
ticipants (with three incomplete responses excluded) and 72 valid re-
sponses from Chinese participants (with three incomplete responses
excluded).
This study’s procedures were the same as Study 1 with one excep-
tion. The stimulus was changed to a gender-neutral authentic Gucci
handbag with attendant descriptions and a price of $895. All partici-
pants answered the question of perceived quality (“The quality of the
Gucci brand is very good,” 1 =strongly disagree and 7 =strongly agree)
and purchase intention (the same measures as in Study 1) of the Gucci
brand. Demographic information was also collected.
Fig. 3. Purchase intention as a function of culture and counterfeit dominance (study 1).
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
7
5.3. Results
We again replicated the interaction effect on purchase intention.
Specically, Anglo-American participants in the counterfeit-dominance
condition reported lower purchase intention than those in the counter-
feit absence condition (M
dominance
=3.69; SD =0.28 vs. M
absence
=4.55;
SD =0.27; F(1,128) =4.98, p <.05). Therefore, H2a received support.
However, Chinese participants in the counterfeit dominance condition
did not exhibit a signicant difference in purchase intention from those
in the counterfeit absence condition (M
dominance
=4.39; SD =0.25;
M
absence
=4.19; SD =0.25; F(1,128) =0.31, p =.58; see Fig. 4 for de-
tails). As such, H2b was conrmed.
As predicted, a two-way ANOVA showed a signicant interaction
between cultural group and counterfeit dominance on perceived quality
of the authentic brand (F(1,128) =3.67, p <.05). Anglo-American
participants in the counterfeit dominance condition perceived the
quality of the authentic brand to be lower than those in the counterfeit
absence condition (M
dominance
=4.66, SD =1.59 vs. M
absence
=5.55, SD
=1.09; F(1,128) =5.31, p <.05). So, H1a was supported. However,
Chinese participants in the counterfeit dominance condition did not
show a signicant difference from those in the counterfeit absence
condition (M
dominance
=5.03, SD =1.65 vs. M
absence
=4.92, SD =1.57; F
(1,128) =0.31, p =.75; see Fig. 5 for details) on quality perception.
Therefore, H1b received support.
To understand further the role of perceived quality on the observed
counterfeit dominance effect, we examined whether perceived quality
mediates the moderating effect of cultural group on purchase intention
using the PROCESS bootstrapping procedure (Model 8; Hayes, 2008).
Using 10,000 bootstrap resamples, we found a moderated mediation
effect of perceived quality on purchase intention (Index of moderated
mediation =0.55, boot S.E. =0.2982, boot CI =0.0113 to 1.1990).
Specically, perceived quality mediated the effect of counterfeit domi-
nance on purchase intention only among Anglo-American participants
(B = − 0.49, S.E.=0.21, 95% boot CI = − 0.95 to −0.13). Therefore, H4a
was conrmed. Also, as expected, this mediation was not signicant for
Chinese participants (B =0.06, S.E. =0.21, 95% boot CI = − 0.35–0.49).
Thus, H4b received support.
5.4. Discussion
In Study 2, we found that counterfeit dominance signicantly
reduced Anglo-American, but not Chinese, brand owners’ perceived
quality of the brand, which conrmed H1a and H1b. Additionally, the
proposed mediation effect of perceived quality in the impact of coun-
terfeit dominance on purchase intention was found among Anglo-
American, but not Chinese, brand owners, thus supporting H4a and
H4b. Despite the promising results, why counterfeit dominance has a
differential effect on the perceived quality and purchase intention of
authentic brands among consumers from different cultural groups re-
mains unclear. We addressed this issue in Study 3 and uncovered the
mechanism underlying a cultural group’s role in consumers’ responses
to counterfeit dominance.
6. Study 3
6.1. Design
The primary purpose of this study was to test H3: attitude functions
underlie the effect of counterfeit dominance on brand owners’ purchase
intention of luxury fashion brands in different cultural groups. In
particular, counterfeit dominance will negatively impact purchase
intention for brand owners with a weak (rather than a strong) social-
adjustive attitude.
6.2. Respondents and procedures
We recruited 200 participants from Mturk (Female =49%, M
age
=
33.8), including 100 Anglo-Americans and 100 Asian-Americans (31.1%
were born in Asian countries). Seventy-two percent were authentic
luxury fashion brand owners. Respondents participated in the experi-
ment for a small monetary reward. We conducted a 2 (Cultural Group:
Asian-American vs. Anglo-American) ×2 (Counterfeit: absence vs.
dominance) between-subjects design.
We rst measured participants’ degree of social-adjustive attitude by
using the 7-item social-adjustive function scale (Grewal et al., 2004).
Participants indicated their agreement to statements such as “Luxury
fashion brands are a symbol of social status” and “Luxury fashion brands
help me in tting into important social situations” (1 =strongly disagree;
7 =strongly agree). The seven questions’ average score was calculated to
represent participants’ propensity of a social-adjustive attitude toward
luxury fashion brands. Counterfeit dominance was manipulated in the
same way as in the previous studies save one exception. We adopted a
different product category (clothing; a gender-neutral t-shirt with a price
of $595) of another luxury fashion brand (Louis Vuitton) for this study.
Fig. 4. Purchase intention as a function of culture and counterfeit dominance (study 2).
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
8
Purchase intention was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =very
low intention; 7 =very high intention to purchase the brand) in the same
manner as used in the previous studies.
6.3. Results
Fifty-ve participants either failed the attention check or did not
answer the survey appropriately. Therefore, their data were excluded
from further analysis. We obtained 145 valid responses (49% females
and 57% Anglo-Americans).
One-way ANOVA results demonstrated that Asian-American partic-
ipants showed a signicantly higher propensity to adopt a social-
adjustive attitude toward luxury fashion brands (M
Asian-Americans
=
3.54, SD =1.57) than Anglo-Americans (M
Anglo-Americans
=2.57, SD =
1.41, F(1.143) =14.62; p <.01). To test H3, we further examined the
moderating role of social-adjustive attitude in the effect of counterfeit
dominance impacting luxury fashion brand purchase intention. We
conducted a regression analysis by adopting PROCESS model 1 (Hayes,
2008). After estimating 10,000 bootstrap iterations, the analysis
revealed a marginally signicant conditional effect of counterfeit
dominance on purchase intention (se =0.19, t = − 1.85; p =.06). The
impact of counterfeit dominance on purchase intention was marginally
signicant among participants with a low (M
social-adjustive
<1.41; one
standard deviation below the mean) social-adjustive attitude toward
luxury fashion brands (M
dominance
=2.18, SD =0.45 vs. M
absence
=3.62,
SD =0.64, F(1.139) =3.32; p =.07). It was not observed, though, for
participants with a high (M
social-adjustive
>2.98, one standard deviation
above the mean) social-adjustive attitude toward luxury fashion brands
(M
dominance
=5.43, SD =0.45 vs. M
absence
=4.93, SD =0.45, F(1.139) =
0.60; p =.43; see Fig. 6 for details). H3 was thus supported.
6.4. Discussion
This study conrmed H3: a social-adjustive attitude underlies the
effect of counterfeit dominance on different cultural groups’ luxury
fashion brand owners’ purchase intention. Counterfeit dominance
negatively affected luxury fashion brands’ purchase intention for
owners with a low social-adjustive attitude (i.e., Anglo-Americans) but
not for those with a high social-adjustive attitude (i.e., Asian-
Americans).
Fig. 5. Perceived quality as a function of culture and counterfeit dominance (study 2).
Fig. 6. Purchase intention as a function of social-adjustive attitude and counterfeit dominance (study 3).
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
9
7. Study 4
7.1. Design
Converging evidence from the rst three studies showed that coun-
terfeit dominance negatively impacts the perceived quality and pur-
chase intention of the authentic product for Anglo-Americans, but not
for Asian-Americans. However, whether the negative counterfeit
dominance effect will spill over and negatively inuence different
product categories of the same authentic brand remains unanswered. As
such, Study 4 tested H5a and H5b by adopting counterfeit Burberry
sunglasses (controlling for a price of $295 across all conditions) as the
product in the counterfeit dominance manipulation and asking partici-
pants to rate the perceived quality and their purchase intention of an
authentic Burberry scarf.
7.2. Respondents and procedures
Seventy-four Chinese undergraduate students in China and 69 Anglo-
American undergraduate students in the U.S. participated in the study
for course extra credit. The design and procedure were the same as in
Study 2 with two exceptions. Participants were shown a pair of coun-
terfeit Burberry sunglasses and were asked to rate the perceived quality
and their purchase intention in the counterfeit-dominance conditions of
an authentic Burberry scarf.
7.3. Results
As expected, two-way ANOVA results showed that Anglo-American
participants reported signicantly lower perceived quality in the coun-
terfeit dominance condition compared to the counterfeit absence con-
dition (M
absence
=5.90 vs. M
dominance
=5.30; F(1, 67) =4.28, p <.01).
For Chinese participants, however, no differences in the foregoing var-
iables were found (M
absence
=6.19 vs. M
dominance
=5.96; F(1, 72) =0.90,
p >.35; see Fig. 7 for details). Therefore, H5a received support. Anglo-
American participants also exhibited a marginally signicantly higher
purchase intention of the luxury fashion brand in the counterfeit absence
condition compared to the counterfeit dominance condition (M
absence
=
5.26 vs. M
dominance
=4.66; F(1, 67) =3.13, p <.10). For Chinese par-
ticipants, though, no difference in purchase intention between the
counterfeit absence and dominance conditions was found (M
absence
=
4.89 vs. M
dominance
=4.56; F(1, 72) =0.75, p >.30; see Fig. 8 for de-
tails). Thus, H5b was conrmed.
7.4. Discussion
In Study 4, we found that the counterfeit dominance effect held not
only for the dominance of identical counterfeits but also for the domi-
nance of products from other product categories of the authentic brand.
Thus, the results supported H5a and H5b. Summarizes in Table 1 are the
ndings of all studies.
8. Conclusions and implications
8.1. Conclusions
This research examined the impact of counterfeit dominance on
luxury fashion brand owners’ perceptions of their brands. The results
suggested that there are cultural differences in brand owners’ reactions
toward counterfeit dominance. Specically, counterfeit dominance
signicantly lowers the perceived quality and purchase intention of the
authentic brand for Anglo-American but not for Asian, brand owners.
Perceived quality mediates the impact of counterfeit dominance on
those brands’ purchase intention for Anglo-American, but not for Asian,
brand owners. The results further revealed that a social-adjustive atti-
tude underlies the effect of counterfeit dominance on consumers’
perceived quality and purchase intention of authentic luxury fashion
brands in different cultural groups. In particular, counterfeit dominance
negatively affects luxury fashion brands’ purchase intention for owners
with a weak social-adjustive attitude (Anglo-Americans), but not for
those with a strong social-adjustive attitude (Asian). The identied ef-
fects also spill over to other product categories of the same brand. This
result infers that counterfeit dominance negatively affects Anglo-
American (but not Asian) brand owners’ perceived quality and pur-
chase intention of those brands across product categories.
To gather samples representing their respective culture in our
research, we collected information from our subjects regarding their
birthplace. In Study 1, 51.5% of Asian-American participants were born
in Asia; in Study 3, 31.1% of Asian-American participants were born in
Asia. As 59% of the Asian-American population in the U.S. were born in
Asia, we believe that the sample collected essentially represents the
Asian-American population in the U.S.
Chinese participants in Studies 2 and 4 were recruited exclusively
from China. Because more than 99% of the Chinese people are born in
China, our sample likely also reects the Chinese population. Indeed in
Study 1, we recruited participants in China and asked them where they
were born. One hundred percent were born in China.
Fig. 7. Perceived quality as a function of culture and counterfeit dominance (study 4).
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
10
8.2. Theoretical implications
Our current research is different from prior empiricism on counter-
feit luxury fashion brands. For example, Wilcox et al. (2009) and Ngo
et al. (2020) investigated how dissimilar attitude functions impact
counterfeit product purchases. Schade et al.’s (2016) undertaking
explored how attitude functions impact luxury consumption among
different age groups. Unlike previous work that focused on the main
effect of attitude functions, we examined the moderating role of attitude
functions to explain how counterfeit dominance inuences perceived
quality and purchase intention for consumers with different cultural
backgrounds (Anglo-American vs. Asian customers).
This research contributes to the literature on luxury fashion brand
consumption, cross-cultural psychology, and counterfeit consumption.
Although work in the luxury fashion brand consumption literature has
examined the motivation of buying counterfeit offerings (Bian, &
Moutinho, 2009; Cordell et al., 1996; Poddar, Foreman, Banerjee, &
Ellen, 2012) and the factors that inuence consumers’ willingness to
purchase them—such as consumer-brand connections (Randhawa et al.,
2015) and consumer attachment (Kaufmann et al., 2016) —our efforts
are the rst to investigate the effect of counterfeit dominance on brand
owners’ perceptions and purchase intention of their luxury fashion
brands in a cross-cultural context. We uniquely dened counterfeit
dominance and revealed that in the situation of counterfeit dominance,
consumers’ perceptions and purchase intention of their own authentic
brand varied depending on their culturally-rooted attitudes toward
luxury fashion brand consumption.
We also contribute to cross-cultural psychology literature by
showing that luxury fashion brand consumers from different cultures
tend to possess a strong (or weak) social-adjustive attitude toward lux-
ury fashion brands. Prior research suggested that culture inuences
luxury consumption (Choi, et al., 2020; Shukla & Purani, 2012; Sta-
thopoulou, & Balabanis, 2019; Zhan & He, 2012). Although marketing
scholars have discussed luxury value perceptions in a cross-cultural
context (e.g., Shukla & Purani, 2012), we are also the rst to nd that
consumers’ social-adjustive attitudes moderate the effect of counterfeit
dominance on purchase intention. Furthermore, although most cross-
cultural studies of counterfeit goods have mainly focused on under-
standing differences in consumers’ attitudes, perceived risks, ethical
beliefs, and purchase intentions toward counterfeits (Harvey & Walls,
2003; Lee & Workman, 2011), our exploration uniquely examined the
impact of counterfeit dominance on consumers’ reactions toward their
authentic luxury fashion brands in different cultures.
This research also adds to the counterfeit consumption literature.
Prior counterfeit work primarily focused on how counterfeit items affect
consumer perceptions of authentic luxury fashion brands (Commuri,
2009; Fournier, 1998; Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999). However, scant
work has investigated how the percentage of counterfeit products,
relative to authentic, luxury fashion brands, affects consumers’ purchase
intention of authentic brands. Our ndings suggest that, when coun-
terfeit offerings comprise more than 50% of the market (counterfeit
dominance), consumers’ purchase intention of authentic brands differs
depending on their cultural background and underlying attitude
functions.
8.3. Managerial implications
Our research offers several implications for marketing practice.
Although some luxury fashion brands (e.g., Louis Vuitton) are frequently
counterfeited in certain countries, little is known regarding how con-
sumers react to a luxury fashion brand when competitive counterfeit
offerings dominate the market. This issue becomes increasingly complex
when we consider consumers from dissimilar cultural backgrounds. Our
research indicates that acknowledgment of counterfeit dominance is
more adverse for Anglo-American, than Asian, fashion brand owners. As
Fig. 8. Purchase intention as a function of culture and counterfeit dominance (study 4).
Table 1
Summary of studies.
Study Participants Samples Hypotheses
Tested
Results
1 Luxury Brand
Owners
Chinese in China (100%
born in China) and
Anglo-Americans in the
U.S.
H2a & H2b All
Supported
2 College
Students
Chinese in China
(assumed 100% born in
China) and Anglo-
Americans in the U.S.
H1a & H1b
and H4a &
H4b
All
Supported
3 Mturkers Asian-Americans in the
U.S. (31.1% born in
Asia) and Anglo-
Americans in the U.S.
H3 Supported
4 College
Students
Chinese in China
(assumed 100% born in
China) and Anglo-
Americans in the U.S.
H5a & H5b All
Supported
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
11
a result, luxury fashion brand manufacturers should collaborate with
news and social media websites to reduce the amount of information
related to counterfeiting of their luxury fashion brands and cooperate
with government agencies to prevent counterfeit dominance in the
Anglo-American culture. However, because Asian brand owners’ per-
ceptions of luxury fashion brands are strongly affected by their peers,
luxury fashion brand manufacturers should focus increasingly on strat-
egies—such as word-of-mouth—to inuence these consumers’ peers to
augment the purchase of those brands. Thus, luxury fashion brand
managers should segment their consumers by culture and develop
different marketing strategies to remedy the loss of sales from counter-
feit dominance.
Also, study ndings have implications for loyalty management
strategies for luxury fashion brand manufacturers in different cultures.
We found that for brand owners with an Anglo-American cultural
background, counterfeit dominance reduces their purchase inten-
tion—or their loyalty toward that brand. Thus, luxury fashion brand
managers should deploy strategies, such as VIP memberships, to main-
tain consumer loyalty, especially for brand owners with an Anglo-
American cultural identity. However, for brand owners with a Asian
cultural background, providing a group discount may increase inuence
from these consumers’ peers to purchase luxury fashion brands.
Our work also offers a stepping stone for exploring approaches that
could potentially increase consumers’ purchase intention of authentic
products relative to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit dominance nega-
tively impacts purchase intention of authentic brands for consumers
with weak social-adjustive attitudes. Therefore, by underscoring
perceived quality in advertisements, marketers conceivably could
augment consumers’ perceived quality of these brands. The denouement
should be enhanced purchase intention of those brands. Thus, authentic
luxury fashion brand manufacturers should create such kinds of adver-
tisements in cultures with a weak social-adjustive attitude. Consumers
from cultures with a robust social-adjustive attitude, though, are more
likely to be affected by their peer groups. Accordingly, authentic brand
manufacturers could adopt a group promotion approach to encourage
peer group inuence on buying behavior.
9. Limitations and future research
Limitations of this study provide opportunities for future research.
Although we measured and manipulated culture and recruited partici-
pants from our targeted cultures, we cannot rule out all alternative ex-
planations. For example, luxury fashion brands have existed in the U.S.
for over 100 years but are relatively new to Asian countries (e.g., China).
Therefore, Asian consumers might believe that luxury fashion brands are
desirable because of their novelty. As a result, their purchase intention
might not be easily inuenced by counterfeit dominance. This potential
phenomenon thus merits empirical attention.
Second, our work only examined Anglo-American versus Asian
consumers’ reactions toward counterfeit dominance. To examine the
generalizability of our results, further research is needed that compares
responses from individuals in other countries/regions with similar cul-
tural backgrounds as Anglo-Americans (e.g., Britain, Ireland, northern
Germany) and those with Asian cultural values (e.g., South Korea,
Japan). Future work investigating differences among consumers across
other cultures, such as Europeans, can also enhance theory and practice.
For example, because Europe is the birthplace and a signicant market
for numerous luxury fashion brands, investigating how European con-
sumers react to their counterfeit dominant brands would be interesting.
We believe that such empiricism regarding this issue could offer major
advances in the counterfeit literature.
Third, we focused solely on investigating the impact of social-
adjustive attitudes. Because both social-adjustive and value-expressive
attitudes could drive luxury fashion brand purchase intention, the ef-
fect we found may be only partially driven by a social-adjustive attitude.
Future research may examine whether a value-expressive attitude could
affect consumers’ purchase intentions of luxury fashion brands in
different cultures in the context of counterfeit dominance. Given that
both social-adjustive and value-expressive attitudes impact the purchase
intention of counterfeit luxury fashion brands (Wilcox et al., 2009),
researchers may also compare how social-adjustive and value-expressive
attitudes affect consumers’ purchase intention in dissimilar cultures in
response to counterfeit dominance. Such work will help authentic luxury
fashion brand manufacturers tailor their marketing campaigns to
improve attraction of customers with various attitude functions and to
combat counterfeit offerings.
Fourth, although we found that counterfeit dominance affected the
perceived quality of luxury fashion brands differently for participants
with high and low social-adjustive attitudes, whether this same effect
would occur vis-`
a-vis familiarity, image, and brand loyalty remains
unknown. Random assignment procedures control for individual dif-
ferences that may be present among participants (Gilovich et al., 2006;
Howell, 2002). Brand image, or brand associations, is “anything linked
to the memory of a brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 109). Brand loyalty is “the
attachment that a customer has to a brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 39).
Conceivably, counterfeit offerings will impact brand image and loyalty
and further affect consumers’ purchase intentions. These foci merit
empirical attention in the context of our work.
Although other components of customer-based brand equity (CBBE)
are essential in predicting consumers’ luxury fashion brands’ purchase
intentions, our research specically focused on the role of perceived
quality and culture (social-adjustive attitude). We proposed a moderated
mediation model to acquire enhanced understanding of the role of
counterfeit offerings on consumers’ perceptions of the quality of the
luxury fashion brands in different cultural contexts. Concurrently, we
controlled for the possible confounding impact of familiarity, image, and
brand loyalty using experimental design. Examining the moderated
mediation of all components of CBBE with social-adjustive attitude in
one investigation would be too cumbersome and inefcient using
experimental design. To explore the impact of counterfeit offerings on
all four components of CBBE under different cultures, however, future
research can employ a structural equation model to account for the ef-
fect of all dimensions.
Finally, all studies were conducted in lab settings or online; this may
limit our ndings’ generalizability. Although eld studies can increase
validity and generalizability, conducting external studies of counterfeit
dominance is difcult. Nevertheless, future research that analyzes sec-
ondary data from the luxury fashion industry could help enhance ar-
guments and assist scholars and practitioners to improve understanding
of cultural differences in counterfeit dominance.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Andr´
e, L. R., Thebault, M., & Roy, Y. (2019). Do product category and consumers’
motivations proles matter regarding counterfeiting? Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 20(5), 379–393.
Baghi, I., Gabrielli, V., & Grappi, S. (2016). Consumers’ awareness of luxury fashion
brand counterfeits and their subsequent responses: When a threat becomes an
opportunity for the genuine brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(5),
452–464.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group inuence on product and brand
purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183. https://doi.org/
10.1086/jcr.1982.9.issue-210.1086/208911.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal inuence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473.
https://doi.org/10.1086/jcr.1989.15.issue-410.1086/209186.
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury fashion brands: A cross
cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1443–1451.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase
consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368–378.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). Counterfeits and branded products: Effects of counterfeit
ownership. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(5), 379–393.
Bian, X., Wang, K.-Y., Smith, A., & Yannopoulou, N. (2016). New insights into unethical
counterfeit consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4249–4258.
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
12
Chandon, J.-L., Laurent, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). Pursuing the concept of
luxury: Introduction to the jbr special issue on “luxury marketing from tradition to
innovation”. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 299–303.
Chapa, S., Minor, M. S., & Maldonado, C. (2006). Product category and origin effects on
consumer responses to counterfeits: Comparing Mexico and the U.S. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 18(4), 79–99.
Choi, Y. K., Seo, Y., Wagner, U., & Yoon, S. (2020). Matching luxury brand appeals with
attitude functions on social media across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 117,
520–528.
Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Li, C. H. (2009). Measuring perceived brand
luxury: An evaluation of the BLI scale. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5-6),
395–405.
Commuri, S. (2009). The impact of counterfeiting on genuine-item consumers’ brand
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 86–98.
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.
Department of Homeland Security. (2020). Combating trafcking in counterfeit and
pirated goods. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/les/publicatio
ns/20_0124_plcy_counterfeit-pirated-goods-report_01.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2020.
Eisend, M. (2019). Morality effects and consumer responses to counterfeit and pirated
products: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 301–323.
Erdem, T. (1998). An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35(3), 339–351.
Erdem, T., & Winer, R. (1999). Econometric modeling of competition: A multi-category
choice-based mapping approach. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1/2), 159–175.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective
knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–353.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). All that is users might not be
gold: How labeling products as user-designed backres in the context of luxury
fashion brands. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 75–91.
Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Social Psychology. New York, NY: Norton
& Company Inc.
Gorzelany, J. (2011). Cars with the most brand-loyal buyers. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2011/10/13/cars-with-th
e-most-brand-loyal-buyers/#7833798b4984. Accessed February 22, 2019.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of
consumer durable goods: The role of functional bases of consumer attitudes. Journal
of Marketing Research, 41(1), 101–115.
Ha, S., & Lennon, S. J. (2006). Purchase intent for fashion counterfeit products: Ethical
ideologies, ethical judgments, and perceived risks. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 24(4), 297–315.
Harvard Business Review (2019). How luxury brands can beat counterfeiters. Retrived
from https://hbr.org/2019/05/how-luxury-brands-can-beat-counterfeiters.
Accessed February 20, 2020.
Harvey, P. J., & Walls, W. D. (2003). Laboratory markets in counterfeit goods: Hong
Kong versus Las Vegas. Applied Economics Letters, 10(14), 883–887.
Hayes, A. F. (2008). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hellofs, L. L., & Jacobson, R. (1999). Market share and customers’ perceptions of quality:
When can rms grow their way to higher versus lower quality? Journal of Marketing,
63(1), 16–25.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across cultures. CA: Sage Publications.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Pacic Grove, CA: Duxbury.
Hussain, A., Konas, A., & Win, S. (2017). Intention to purchase counterfeit luxury
products: A comparative study between Pakistani and the UK consumers. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 29(5), 331–346.
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition. (2019). Report on the state of counterfeit
and pirated goods trafcking and recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.
regulations.gov/document?D=DOC-2019-0003-0072. Accessed July 10, 2020.
International Chamber of Commerce. (2017). Global impacts of counterfeiting and piracy
to reach $4.2 trillion by 2022. Retrieved from https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news
-speeches/global-impacts-counterfeiting-piracy-reach-us4-2-trillion-2022/. Accessed
January 11, 2020.
Holmqvist, J., Diaz Ruiz, C., & Pe˜
naloza, L. (2020). Moments of luxury: Hedonic
escapism as a luxury experience. Journal of Business Research, 116, 503–513.
Kapferer, J. N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2019). How self-success drives luxury demand: An
integrated model of luxury growth and country comparisons. Journal of Business
Research, 102, 273–287.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24(2), 163–204.
Kaufmann, H. R., Petrovici, D. A., Filho, C. G., & Ayres, A. (2016). Identifying moderators
of brand attachment for driving customer purchase intention of original vs
counterfeits of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Business Research, 69(12),
5735–5747.
Kerr-crowley, M. (2019). Louis Vuitton is currently the world’s most valuable luxury
brand. Retrieved from https://fashionjournal.com.au/fashion/louis-vuitton-mo
st-valuable-luxury-brand/. Accessed July 10, 2020.
Kwong, K. K., Y., W. Y. P., Leung, J. W. K. & Wang, K. (2009), Attitude toward
counterfeits and ethnic groups: Comparing Chinese and Western consumers
purchasing counterfeits. Journal of Euromarketing, 18(3), 157–168.
Lee, S. H., & Workman, J. E. (2011). Attitudes toward counterfeit purchases and ethical
beliefs among Korean and American university students. Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Journal, 39(3), 289–305.
Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Lemmink, J. (2008). Negative spillover in brand portfolios:
exploring the antecedents of asymmetric effects. Journal of Marketing, 72(May),
111–123.
Liu, M. T., Wong, I. A., Tseng, T., Chang, A. W., & Phau, I. (2017). Applying consumer-
based brand equity in luxury hotel branding. Journal of Business Research, 81,
192–202.
Marticotte, F., & Arcand, M. (2017). Schadenfreude, attitude and the purchase intentions
of a counterfeit luxury brand. Journal of Business Research, 77(1), 175–183.
Melnik, A., Shy, O., & Stenbacka, R. (2008). Assessing market dominance. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 63–72.
Marcketti, S. B., & Shelley, M. C. (2009). Consumer concern, knowledge and attitude
towards counterfeit apparel products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33
(3), 327–337.
Mavlanova, T., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Counterfeit products on the internet: The
role of seller-level and product-level information. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 15(2), 79–104.
Mitra, D., & Golder, P. N. (2006). How does objective quality affect perceived quality?
Short-term effects, long-term effects, and asymmetries. Marketing Science, 25(3),
230–247.
Ngo, L. V., Northey, G., Tran, Q., & Septianto, F. (2020). The devil might wear prada, but
Narcissus wears counterfeit Gucci! How social adjustive functions inuence
counterfeit luxury purchases. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 52, N.PAG.
Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury
fashion brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497.
Parguel, B., Del´
ecolle, T., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). How price display inuences
consumer luxury perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 341–348.
Poddar, A., Foreman, J., Banerjee, S., & Ellen, P. S. (2012). Exploring the Robin Hood
effect: Moral proteering motives for purchasing counterfeit products. Journal of
Business Research, 65(10), 1500–1506.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). The economic
impact of counterfeiting and priacy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/387
07619.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2021.
Qian, Y. (2014). Counterfeiters: Foes or friends? How counterfeits affect sales by product
quality tier. Management Science, 60(10), 2381–2400.
Randhawa, P., Calantone, R. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2015). The pursuit of counterfeited
luxury: An examination of the negative side effects of close consumer–brand
connections. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2395–2403.
Romani, S., Gistri, G., & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury
fashion brands. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 807–824.
Schade, M., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., & Brinkmann, N. (2016). The impact of attitude
functions on luxury fashion brand consumption: An age-based group comparison.
Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 314–322.
Shavitt, S. (1989). Products, personalities and situations in attitude functions:
Implications for consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 300–305.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 124–148.
Shukla, P., & Purani, K. (2012). Comparing the importance of luxury value perceptions in
cross-national contexts. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1417–1424.
Singh, A., & Kumar, R. (2017). Counterfeit products: A serious problem of rural market.
Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 8(11), 58–62.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York:
Wiley.
Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2012). Business strategies in the counterfeit market.
Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 658–665.
Stathopoulou, A., & Balabanis, G. (2019). The effect of cultural value orientation on
consumers’ perceptions of luxury value and proclivity for luxury consumption.
Journal of Business Research, 102, 298–312.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality:
Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(3), 586–597.
Taverriti-Fortier, C., Pape, E., Scala-Bertola, J., Tr´
echot, P., Maincent, P., Gibaja, V., &
Gambier, N. (2015). Counterfeit and falsied drugs: An overview. Therapie, 70(5),
455–464.
Thomson, M., Maclnnis, J. D., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.
Turunen, L. L. M., & Laaksonen, P. (2011). Diffusing the boundaries between luxury and
counterfeits. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 468–474.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of
Brand Management, 11(6), 484–506.
Voss, K. E., Eric, R. S., & Bianca, G. (2003). Measuring hedonic and utilitarian dimensions
of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.
Wall Street Journal. (2019). Trump has a plan to stop fake goods. Retrieved from https://
www.wsj.com/articles/trump-has-a-plan-to-stop-fake-goods-11554246679.
Accessed July 10, 2020.
Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service rm:
Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35
(1), 127–143.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury
fashion brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.
World Trade Organization. (1994). Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights.
Retrived from https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/trips_e.htm#part1.
Accessed July 10, 2020.
L. Song et al.
Journal of Business Research 130 (2021) 1–13
13
Yoo, B., & Lee, S. (2012). Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with genuine fashion
luxury fashion brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each. Journal of
Business Research, 65(10), 1507–1515.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer
perceptions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1452–1460.
Lei Song (Ph.D., Drexel University) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Business
Program of the Pennsylvania State University—Abington, Abington, PA, USA. His research
focuses on providing business insights by exploring how cultural, individual, and social
factors affect consumers’ purchasing behavior in both online and in-store retail contexts.
His work has been published in Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Business Hori-
zons, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Journal of Marketing Channels,
and other venues. He can be reached at LeiSong@psu.edu.
Yan Meng (Ph.D., Baruch College/City University of New York) is assistant professor in
the marketing department at Grenoble Ecole de Management in France. Her research area
involves how identity, linguistic, sensory, contextual cues, and cultural meanings
inuence consumer judgment and decision making. Her work has been published in ac-
ademic journals such as Journal of Business Research and Psychology & Marketing. She can
be reached at Yan.Meng@grenoble-em.com.
Hua Chang (Ph.D., Drexel University) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Mar-
keting Department at Towson University, Towson, MD, USA. His work has been published
in Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Advertising, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, and other outlets. He can be reached at chang@towson.edu.
Wenjing Li (Ph.D., University of Kentucky) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the
Department of Management and Marketing at Stephen F. Austin State University,
Nacogdoches, TX, USA. Her work has been published in Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services. She can be reached at liw1@sfasu.edu.
Kang (Frank) Tan (Ph. D., University of British Columbia) is chairman of ACIP Tech-
nology Ltd. Co., China. His work has been published in Journal of Marketing Channels. He
can be reached at frank_tan2001@hotmail.com.
L. Song et al.
