Journal of Indian Business Research

Examining consumers’ attitude towards purchase of counterfeit fashion products

Vinita Bhatia,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Vinita Bhatia, (2018) "Examining consumers’ attitude towards purchase of counterfeit fashion
products", Journal of Indian Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2017-0177
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2017-0177
Downloaded on: 28 January 2018, At: 20:58 (PT)
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 54 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6 times since 2018*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:123756 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-4195.htm

Purchase of
Examining consumers’ attitude counterfeit
towards purchase of counterfeit fashion
products
fashion products
Vinita Bhatia
St. Francis Institute of Management and Research, Mumbai, India
Received 6 October 2017
Revised 10 November 2017
30 November 2017
Accepted 6 December 2017
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the factors affecting consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products and the relationship of consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit fashion products with
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

purchase intention.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model is proposed and validated by following the
various studies on counterfeit products. A survey of 382 respondents was conducted in the Mumbai city. The
researcher has used structural equation modelling to test the causal relationships among the constructs.
Findings – The results of the study indicate that value consciousness, materialism and social influence
positively relate to consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit fashion products which eventually leads to
purchase intention. Brand consciousness and perceived risk have no significant relationship with consumers’
attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. Low-income group consumers are value conscious and brand
conscious and perceive a low risk which influences their attitude towards counterfeit fashion products.
Research limitations/implications – The study uses a self-reported measure to collect the data
through email, and a printed copy of the questionnaire was circulated. Also, the method of sample selection
was not random. These two aspects could limit the generalizability of the results.
Practical implications – The paper provides assistance to the manufacturers and the retailers of genuine
brand products to formulate better marketing strategies for attracting new customers.
Originality/value – The study aims to investigate the factors affecting Indian consumers’ attitude
towards counterfeit fashion products which is not much analysed. The factors were carefully chosen so as to
meet the requirements of the study. Income is taken as a moderator for studying the relationship between
factors and attitude towards counterfeit fashion products.
Keywords Consumer, Counterfeit, Purchase attitude
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Luxury fashion goods business is a very lucrative one which is growing at a phenomenal
growth rate, but simultaneously they have been trapped by the manufacturers of counterfeit
fashion products. As the technology is becoming more and more advanced, it is becoming
easier to manufacture counterfeit products (Phau et al., 2009; Eisend and Schuchert-Guler,
2006; Penz and Stottinger, 2005) with better quality (Eisend and Schuchert-Guler, 2006; Penz
and Stottinger, 2005) and less of research and development costs (Gentry et al., 2006).
Luxury brands are the first to get affected, as they are popular among consumers but
expensive, which presents an opportunity for counterfeit manufacturers to produce it at
lower costs and make money with established brand names. Counterfeit products are
coming in excellent quality, cheaper in price and easily available, so even the people who can
afford genuine luxury brands are also actively seeking for it (BASCAP Report, 2009), due to Journal of Indian Business
Research
which the business of genuine brand manufacturers has gone down. Research suggests that © Emerald Publishing Limited
1755-4195
if product attributes of counterfeit and genuine brands are similar in terms of quality and DOI 10.1108/JIBR-10-2017-0177
 JIBR performance, then the consumer will prefer counterfeits, as it will be advantageous in terms
of price (Kattoulas, 2002; Phau and Teah, 2009). In case of deceptive counterfeiting
(Grossman and Shapiro, 1988), the consumer is not aware about the fake item purchased and
buys poor-quality product due to which the image of the brand is affected. On the other
hand, in non-deceptive counterfeiting, the fake products are knowingly purchased by the
buyer (Wilcox et al., 2009), which is particularly seen in the luxury fashion market. In case of
non-deceptive counterfeiting which is also the focus of this research, there are certain factors
which influence the purchase of counterfeit. The number of factors and the amount of
influence varies between area, age, income and education. Counterfeit is a serious problem
which needs to be curbed, studying the factors influencing the purchase of counterfeit can
help the genuine brand manufacturers to devise certain strategies for retaining their market
share.
Customer buying behaviour is affected by certain factors like social influence, risk
involved, materialistic attitude, value for money, brand consciousness and many more.
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

These factors also influence the purchase of counterfeit fashion products, and several
researchers have found value consciousness (Cordell et al., 1996; Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al.,
2005; Gentry et al., 2006; Chadha, 2007; Furnham and Valgeirsson, 2007; Prakash and
Pathak, 2017), brand consciousness (Grossman and Shapiro, 1988; Cordell et al., 1996; Wang
et al., 2005; Phau et al., 2009; Djuhardi and Kusumawati, 2017), perceived risk (Matos et al.,
2007; Tan, 2002), materialism (Wilcox et al., 2009; Gentry et al., 2001) and social influence
(Bearden et al., 1989; Ian Phau et al., 2009), affecting the purchase of counterfeit fashion
products. These findings are from regions and countries other than India, and it may not be
similar to the Indian consumer. The income of the Indian people is much lower than the
Western countries, and their perception of counterfeit products can also be different. In a
country like India, people have less purchasing power and majority of people are at the
bottom of the pyramid. It might be possible that value-conscious people, who cannot afford
expensive luxury fashion goods, may resort to counterfeits. Also, the culture of India and
people’s lifestyle is different from the Western countries. Here, the people may or may not be
so much brand conscious. Encouraged by previous studies, the researcher tries to find the
factors affecting counterfeit fashion purchase in the Indian context and takes income as a
moderator for studying the relationship between factors and attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products.
Also, contradiction exists in the previous research which is also a reason for conducting
this study. Researchers in the past have come up with different findings on the influence of
brand consciousness on counterfeit purchases. Grossman and Shapiro (1988) in their study
found a negative relationship of brand consciousness and attitude towards counterfeit
products, whereas Cordell et al. (1996); Wang et al. (2005) and Phau et al. (2009) found a
positive relationship of brand consciousness and attitude towards counterfeit products.
Similarly, there are mixed opinion about the impact of income on attitude towards
counterfeit products. According to Ang et al. (2001), Tan (2002), Kempen (2003), Franses and
Lede (2012), Hamelin et al. (2013), Stravinskiene et al. (2013) and Stephen et al. (2014), low-
income earners are more likely to purchase counterfeits, whereas Kwong et al. (2003), Bian
and Moutinho (2009) and Jurgita et al. (2013) reported that income had no significant effect
on consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeit goods.
This study provides an insight into the factors which influence the attitude towards
counterfeit fashion products about the Indian consumers. The results of the study validate
previous findings that social influence, materialism and value consciousness affect Indian
consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. It also confirms that low-income
group consumers perceive a low risk for a positive attitude towards counterfeit fashion
 products. Also, low-income group consumers are more value conscious and brand Purchase of
conscious, which influences them to have a positive attitude towards counterfeit fashion counterfeit
goods. The findings of this study help the original fashion brand manufacturers to
understand that Indian consumers are influenced by others. The original brand marketers
fashion
should aim for relationship building with their customers and gaining word-of-mouth products
promotions. It is also suggested that retailers should handle point of purchase better that
might lead to increase in sales by social influence. Sales presentation should be prepared
before and salesmen should guide customers in making purchases. People of low-income
group in India are value conscious, so the manufactures of big original brands can think of
complementary gifts and point-based gifts. Value-based offers can be given to customers
and the company should keep a track about their customers through data analytics and give
customized discounts. Low-income group consumers are also brand conscious, but due to
low purchasing power, they buy counterfeits, for those manufacturers can offer brand
extensions where they can provide a lower range of products for value conscious and
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

materialistic customers.
The present research intends to test the factors influencing attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products. After thorough literature review, standard scale of factors like social
influence, materialism, value consciousness, perceived risk and brand consciousness was
prepared to test their influence on attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. A
structured questionnaire was prepared and circulated among customers of fashion-related
products. The respondents are 382 in number from Mumbai in India, and through structural
equation modelling, causal relationships among the constructs are analysed. Furthermore,
the findings and implications are discussed in detail.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Value-conscious customers have a positive attitude towards counterfeits (Cordell et al., 1996;
Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Gentry et al., 2006; Chadha, 2007; Furnham and
Valgeirsson, 2007; Prakash and Pathak, 2017). They prefer to pay lower prices for limited
quality product (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Hamelin et al., 2013) as long as the basic
functional requirement and symbolic value is given by the counterfeits (Furnham and
Valgeirsson, 2007). Price is an important influencing factor of consumers’ attitude towards
counterfeit products (Cordell et al., 1996; Gentry et al., 2006; Chadha, 2007). Consumers who
are not willing to pay a higher price purchase counterfeit products and gain brand name,
prestige and image benefits (Gentry et al., 2006). Value-conscious consumers pay a low price
and compromise on quality.
Counterfeit fashion purchases are done for seeking variety, and the consumers can afford
to compromise on quality, as they have an advantage to shop more with the limited budget.
Counterfeit purchases vary according to product type, like if the product is bought
infrequently, risky and highly self-expressive (an automobile), then the consumers do not
compromise on quality for paying less (Kotler and Keller, 2011), they go for established
brand names within their budget. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Value-conscious consumers have a positive attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products.
Numerous researches have been conducted on the influence of brand consciousness on
counterfeit purchases and have come up with different findings. Grossman and Shapiro
(1988) in their study found that consumers who are brand conscious have a negative attitude
towards counterfeit products. Similarly, Djuhardi and Kusumawati (2017) found brand
image has significant influence on attitude towards counterfeit. Whereas, Cordell et al. (1996)
 JIBR and Wang et al. (2005) say that the more the prestige and status of a brand, the higher is the
desire for a customer to buy counterfeit luxury brands, as the desire for flaunting and
showing off is fulfilled. According to Phau et al. (2009), if the counterfeits are coming in good
quality and hardly any difference is seen, then even brand conscious consumers buy
counterfeits. They compare the pros and cons of buying a counterfeit before making a
purchase. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Brand consciousness is significantly related with attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products.
Perceived risk is one of the most discussed variables in the marketing literature (Mitchell,
1999), and a lot of research has been conducted on the impact of perceived risk to explain
consumers’ behaviour and decision-making (Forsythe and Shi, 2003). It is said to be an
important issue during buying decisions and the consumer seeks to reduce uncertainty and
the unfavourable consequences of their purchase decisions (Mitchell, 1998). Perceived risk
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

comprises of multiple risk like functional risks, financial risks, social risks, physical risks,
psychological risk and time risk (Sunitha et al., 2012). Every product is subject to all these
risks and the tolerance level of each customer varies with the types of risks (Mitchell, 1998)
and the type of product category.
According to Prakash and Pathak (2017), some consumers perceive buying counterfeit as
risky and may end up buying a defective and unreliable product. Matos et al. (2007) say that
consumers who perceive more (less) risk in counterfeits have unfavourable (favourable)
attitude towards counterfeits. For instance, in case of pirated software, Tan (2002) examined
the influence of perceived risk on purchase intentions and revealed that consumers who
perceive low risk in pirated software have higher intention to purchase. Bian and Moutinho
(2011) stated, financial risk is not a key deterrent in purchasing counterfeit, but social risk
has a negative impact on purchase intention of counterfeit branded products.
However, even if a consumer perceives risk in counterfeit fashion products, it does not
prevent them from buying it as the fashion-related products are wanted by consumers for
pomp and show. The consumers enjoy the benefit of luxury brand name without paying the
high price (Gentry et al., 2006). In case of non-deceptive counterfeit purchases (Wilcox et al.,
2009), consumers are already aware that the product will be of substandard quality (Ang
et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005), and they accept the fact that there will be also some financial
risk involved in it as counterfeits are coming without warranties (Bian and Veloutsou, 2007).
In case of complex buying behaviour when the product is bought infrequently and highly
self-expressive like an automobile, the consumers do not want to take any risks (Kotler and
Keller, 2011). But, for purchasing fashion-related products, consumers ignore the associated
risk involved, as the people who are less well-off can fulfil their aspirations of flaunting
(Cordell et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2005). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Perceived risk is negatively related with attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products.
Materialism refers to ownership and acquisition of material things in realizing life goals and
desired status. As compared to average consumers, materialistic consumers are obsessed
about having more goods. Their motive is to project wealth, status, uniqueness and generate
social appreciation (Mason, 2001). Literature suggests that people may have uncommon
behaviors when they are not happy with life (Trinh and Phau, 2011) like cheering
themselves up by shopping and buying gifts. During recession 2010, there was an increase
in sales of cosmetics, whereas the sales of necessities showed a drop (L’Oreal, 2010).
 Richins and Dawson (1992) opined that material values like success, centrality and Purchase of
happiness are the three dimensions of materialism which influences consumer willingness to counterfeit
buy counterfeit luxury brands. Materialistic consumers buy luxury brands (Veblen, 1899)
but with the mere distribution of counterfeit luxury brands (Wilcox et al., 2009), highly
fashion
materialistic consumers who lack financial resources pursue their materialistic goals by products
purchasing counterfeit luxury brands (Gentry et al., 2001). As such, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H4. Materialistic consumers have a positive attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products.
Social influence refers to the impact which one individual exerts on another individuals’
purchase behaviour (Ang et al., 2001). Customer buying behaviour is significantly
influenced by social class more than just income (Martineau, 1968). Consumers make
purchases to impress others (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Penz and Stottinger, 2005).
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

They purchase a product keeping in mind what others think of them and would expect or
want them to buy. They are more conscious about their self-image and are inclined to satisfy
the society’s expectations and want to make a good impression on others.
Mellott (1983) says that people consume products according to their social class position
and try to chase a class above them, so they try to purchase branded products to project
status, wealth and social class. If the brand prestige is central to the customers and could not
afford expensive branded products, they turn to counterfeits. With the pressure from
referent groups and peers, customers buy original or counterfeit products and intend to
make a good impression (Bearden et al., 1989). Ian Phau et al. (2009) in their study validates
that social influence has a strong impact on attitude towards counterfeit products. Similarly,
Djuhardi and Kusumawati (2017) found that brand image has a significant influence on
attitude towards counterfeit. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Social influence is positively related with attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products.
The link between attitude and behavioural intentions has been extensively examined in the
consumer behaviour literature. According to the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) and the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), purchase
behaviour of a customer is determined by purchase intention which in turn is determined by
the attitude towards the product.
The attitude towards counterfeit luxury brands plays a major role in influencing a
person to buy counterfeit luxury brands (Penz and Stottinger, 2005; Gentry et al., 2006).
Favourable consumer attitude towards counterfeit luxury brands leads to higher chances of
counterfeit brand purchases, and unfavourable consumer attitude towards counterfeit
luxury brands leads to lesser chances of counterfeit brand purchases (Penz and Stottinger,
2005; Djuhardi and Kusumawati, 2017; Prakash and Pathak, 2017) regardless of product
type (Ang et al., 2001). Also, the attitude towards counterfeit luxury brands is altered
frequently, depending on how the consumer is satisfied with life (Trinh and Phau, 2011). As
such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6. Attitude towards counterfeit fashion products is positively related with the
intention to purchase counterfeit fashion products.
Numerous researchers have found that low-income earners are more likely to purchase
counterfeits (Ang et al., 2001; Tan, 2002; Kempen, 2003; Franses and Lede, 2012; Hamelin
et al., 2013; Stravinskiene et al., 2013; Stephen et al., 2014). People of lower-income groups in
 JIBR Singapore have a more favourable attitude towards the purchase of pirated CDs (Ang et al.,
2001), and in China, income is a moderator of purchase intention of pirated software (Tan,
2002). Similarly, Stravinskiene et al. (2013) and Franses and Lede (2012) opined that people
living in low-income households or located in poor countries are more susceptible to
purchase counterfeit drugs especially when the products become cheaper.
On the contrary, some studies (Kwong et al., 2003; Bian and Moutinho, 2009) reported
that income had no significant effect on consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeit goods.
Similarly, Jurgita et al. (2013) argued that the purchase of counterfeits cannot always be
linked to low consumer income, as consumption of luxury goods counterfeits is widely
spread in economically developed countries with high consumer income. As such, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H7a. Income is a moderator for attitude towards counterfeit fashion products.

H7b. Income is not a moderator for attitude towards counterfeit fashion products.
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

Empirical study
The hypothesized relationships between the constructs were empirically validated through
a study among customers buying counterfeit fashion products in the city of Mumbai in
India. The respondents were the customers who bought counterfeit fashion-related
products. The customers were drawn from different areas of Mumbai, and the data were
collected through a structured questionnaire. The respondents were people who bought
counterfeit fashion-related products, as the researcher tried to study the behaviour of people
who had already purchased counterfeit products in the past. An online survey was prepared
and mailed to the respondents, and printed copy was also circulated wherein they filled their
responses. Each statement was presented on a five-point Likert scale question, where 1
stands for the strongly disagree and 5 stands for the strongly agree. After thorough data
cleaning, 382 responses were deemed fit for analysis.

Measurement model
The study derives three items relating to value consciousness from Phau and Teah (2009);
four items relating to perceived risk from De Matos et al. (2007); four items of social influence
were derived from Phau and Teah (2009) and Bearden et al. (1989); four items of brand
consciousness were derived from Ha and Tam (2015); four items of materialism were derived
from Richins and Dawson (1992); four items of attitude towards counterfeit products were
derived from Phau and Teah (2009), De Matos et al. (2007) and Wang et al. (2005); and four
items of purchase intension were derived from Phau and Teah (2009), De Matos et al. (2007)
and Ang et al. (2001).
In most of the studies, it was discovered that value consciousness, perceived risk, social
influence, brand consciousness and materialism are the main factors which influence
consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products and therefore were included in the
questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part of the
questionnaire was designed to obtain the demographic characteristics (age, gender, income,
education) and the second part consisted of 27 questions related to all the seven factors/
constructs taken for the study. Table I displays the summary of measurement scales.
For data analysis, this study used AMOS 20 to validate the integrity of the proposed
research model and the significance of our hypotheses. The maximum likelihood estimation
procedure was followed for assessing the measurement model and the structural model. To
assess the reliability of the measurement model, the overall model fit, composite reliability
 Construct
Social influence
Materialism
Value consciousness
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)
Perceived risk
Brand consciousness
Attitude towards counterfeit
Purchase intentions
(CR), the average variance extracted (AVE) and maximum shared variance (MSV) were
computed. Table II displays the reliability of various constructs. The composite reliabilities
were greater than the recommended 0.70 cutoff (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The AVE
values are higher than 0.5 which provides evidence of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010).
The MSV value is less than the AVE which indicates the discriminant validity between each
Variable Cronbach’s alpha
Purchase of
counterfeit
I observe what others are buying and using before 0.896 fashion
buying a product
If I have little experience with a product, I ask products
around
I consult other people to help choose the best
alternative available from a product class
I gather information from friends or family about a
product before I buy
I like to own things that impress people 0.903
I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and
clothes
I like a lot of luxury in my life
I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things
I am concerned about price and product quality 0.864
I compare prices for the best value for money
I try to maximize the quality for the money spent
The risk that I take when I buy a counterfeit product 0.918
is high
There is high probability that the product doesn’t
work
If I buy counterfeit products, it may negatively affect
what others think of me
Buying counterfeit products make me feel unhappy/
frustrated
It is important that others like the products and 0.816
brands I buy
If other people see me using a product, I often
purchase the brand they expect me to buy
I like to know what brands and products make good
impressions on others
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the
same brands that they buy
Counterfeit products are as reliable as the genuine 0.796
products
Counterfeit products have similar quality to the
genuine products
Counterfeit products provided similar functions to
the genuine products
Generally speaking, buying counterfeit products is a
wise choice
I would think about a counterfeit product as a choice 0.898
when buying something
I will buy counterfeit products
I would recommend counterfeit products to friends Table I.
and family Summary of
I will buy counterfeit products from peddlers measurement scales
 JIBR construct and any other construct (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, discriminate validity is
confirmed by checking the square root of the AVE which is greater than any of the inter-
construct correlations (bold values in Table III). Table III is automatically generated by stats
Tools Package which exhibits the correlation matrix.
With respect to the measurement model fit, the overall chi-square for the measurement
model was 463.630 with Df = 303 and x 2/Df = 1.530. The comparative fit index was 0.975,
the Tucker–Lewis index was 0.971, goodness-of-fit index was 0.920 and adjusted goodness-
of-fit index was 0.901. The root-mean-square error of approximation was 0.037, which is less
than 0.05 and suggests a close model fit.

Hypotheses validation
The result of the structural model suggests a significant effect of value consciousness on
attitude towards counterfeit fashion products ( b 1 = 0.120, p < 0.05) supporting the
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

proposed hypothesis. Therefore, H1 was accepted. The path estimates depict that brand
consciousness have no significant relationship with attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products; thus, H2 is not supported ( b 1 = 0.061, p > 0.05). The analysis also suggests that
there is no significant relationship between perceived risk and attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products ( b 1 = 0.038, p > 0.05). Hence, H3 is not supported. The path estimates
results suggest that materialism positively affects attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products ( b 1 = 0.491, p < 0.001). Hence, H4 was accepted. The path estimates point that
social influence has a strong impact on attitude towards counterfeit fashion products ( b 1 =
0.300, p < 0.001), thus supporting H5. The path estimates also suggest that attitude towards
counterfeit fashion products positively influences purchase intention of counterfeit fashion
products ( b 1 = 0.678, p < 0.001). Thus, H6 is accepted (Figure 1).

Construct CR AVE MSV

Value consciousness 0.865 0.682 0.280

Brand consciousness 0.817 0.528 0.176
Perceived risk 0.921 0.745 0.176
Materialism 0.904 0.702 0.342
Table II. Social influence 0.899 0.691 0.284
Reliability of Attitude towards counterfeit 0.814 0.527 0.480
research variable Purchase intention 0.899 0.691 0.480

Attitude
Value Brand Perceived Social towards Purchase
Construct consciousness consciousness risk Materialism influence counterfeit intention

Value
consciousness 0.826
Brand
consciousness 0.369 0.726
Perceived risk 0.381 0.419 0.863
Materialism 0.327 0.298 0.228 0.838
Social influence 0.529 0.310 0.226 0.482 0.831
Attitude towards
Table III. counterfeit 0.404 0.307 0.220 0.585 0.533 0.726
Purchase
Correlation matrix intention 0.258 0.181 0.230 0.546 0.387 0.693 0.831
 Purchase of
Value
Consciousness counterfeit
 = 0.12*
fashion
H1 products

Brand  = 0.06
Consciousness H2

 = 0.04
H3
Perceived Atude towards
counterfeit Purchase
Risk
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

 = 0.68** Intenon

 = 0.49** H6
H4

Materialism

 = 0.30**
H5
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
Social
Influence ------------------ Insignificant

___________ Significant Figure 1.

Path coefficients in
hypothesized
relationship
N = 382

To investigate the moderating effects of income, the total sample was divided into high- and
low-income groups. The multi-group analysis reveals the results of chi-square difference test
which tells the two models are different based on the low-income and high-income groups
(p < 0.01). Table IV displays the results of modal comparison. The moderating effect of
income was seen only for low-income groups for factors like perceived risk, value
consciousness and brand consciousness. It was found that low-income group (LIG)
customers perceived less risk (LIG: b 1 = 0.212, p < 0.05; HIG: b 1 = 0.052, p > 0.05) which
positively influenced their attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. Similarly, low-
income group customers are more value conscious (LIG: b 1 = 0.382, p < 0.01; HIG: b 1 =
0.154, p > 0.05) and brand conscious (LIG: b 1 = 0.245, p < 0.05; HIG: b 1 = 0.180, p > 0.05)
which positively influenced their attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. In both high
and LIGs, moderating effect of income was not seen in case of materialism (LIG: b 1 = 0.394,
p > 0.05; HIG: b 1 = 0.345, p > 0.05) and social influence (LIG: b 1 = 0.318, p > 0.05; HIG: b 1
= 0.287, p > 0.05). Thus, H7a and H7b are partially accepted (Table IV) (Figures 2 and 3).

Discussion
This study provides an insight into the factors which influence the attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products. The conceptual model of our study resulted in acceptance of four hypotheses,
 JIBR while two hypotheses are not supported by the results. We found that value consciousness, social
influence and materialism are positively related with attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products. The relationship between consumers’ attitude and purchase intentions were re-
established, which also reflect in many other studies conducted by various researchers (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ang et al., 2001). It has been found that consumers of
counterfeit fashion products in India who have favourable attitude towards counterfeit fashion
products also have a strong intention to re-purchase counterfeit fashion products.
The results of the study validate previous findings (Cordell et al., 1996; Ang et al., 2001;
Wang et al., 2005; Gentry et al., 2006; Chadha, 2007; Furnham and Valgeirsson, 2007) that
consumers who are value conscious have a positive attitude towards counterfeits. It has
been observed that the perception of value is one of the factors in explaining attitude
towards counterfeit among the customers of low-income group.
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

Model DF CMIN P NFI Delta-1 IFI Delta-2 RFI rho-1 TLI rho2
Table IV.
Modal comparison Structural weights 26 36.297 0.008 0.014 0.015 0.007 0.007

Value
Consciousness

 = 0.154

Brand
Consciousness  = 0.180

 = 0.052
Perceived Atude towards
counterfeit Purchase
Risk
 = 0.484 Intenon

 = 0.345

Materialism

 = 0.287

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Social
Figure 2. Influence ------------------ Insignificant
Path coefficients in
hypothesized ___________
relationship for high- Significant
income group
customers
N = 164
 Purchase of
Value
Consciousness counterfeit
 = 0.382**
fashion
products

Brand
Consciousness
 = 0.245*

 = –0.212*
Perceived Atude towards
counterfeit Purchase
Risk
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

 = 0.562 Intenon

 = 0.394

Materialism

 = 0.318

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Social
Figure 3.
Influence ------------------ Insignificant
Path coefficients in
hypothesized
___________
Significant relationship for low-
income group
customers
N = 218

According to the present study, brand consciousness is one of the characteristics among people
of low-income group which motivates them to have a positive attitude towards counterfeits and
eventually purchase counterfeit fashion products. Sometimes, brand conscious consumers
cannot afford original branded products and hence have a desire to purchase counterfeits
(Wang et al., 2005; Cordell et al., 1996). Similarly, Budiman (2012) opined that consumers with
lower status generally buy counterfeits so they can project a higher position.
There is a negative relationship between perceived risk and attitude towards counterfeit
fashion products among the customers of low-income group in India. The perception of risk is
less among them, as they are already aware of substandard product quality (Ang et al., 2001;
Wang et al., 2005) and enjoy the benefit of luxury brand name without paying the high price
(Gentry et al., 2006). In case of non-deceptive counterfeit purchases (Wilcox et al., 2009), they have
deliberately ignored the risk associated with the purchase of counterfeits. Also, there is a
combination of high risk and low risk among the high-income group customers of counterfeit
fashion products in India.
Besides this, the findings also validate that Indian counterfeit fashion products consumers
who are materialistic have a positive attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. It is
supported by Gentry et al. (2001) and Wilcox et al. (2009) who found that materialistic attitude is
 JIBR positively related with counterfeits. According to the present research, there is no significant
difference between high- and low-income group customers for influence of materialism on
attitude towards counterfeit fashion products. Consumers with materialistic values, wants to
have more and more goods (Mason, 2001), among those who can afford genuine luxury brands
are actively seeking for it (BASCAP Report, 2009) and those who cannot, pursue their
materialistic aims by purchasing counterfeit luxury brands (Gentry et al., 2001).
Customer buying behaviour is significantly influenced by others (Martineau, 1968; Ang
et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Penz and Stottinger, 2005). The findings reconfirm the earlier
research conducted by Ian Phau et al. (2009) which opined that social influence has a strong
impact on the attitude towards counterfeit products. Similar researches preached that
referent groups and peers create strong influence to buy original or counterfeits, as the
individuals want to create a positive impression on others and project wealth (Mellott, 1983;
Bearden et al., 1989). The majority of people in India lie in the low- and moderate-income
group and desire for high standard and luxury goods. Therefore, people who cannot afford
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

expensive fashion goods resort to buying counterfeits which carries the same function of
displaying wealth to their peers. Furthermore, counterfeits are also bought by those who can
afford original fashion brands because of materialistic tendencies in them (Mason, 2001).

Theoretical and managerial implications

Customers are influenced by other people (Martineau, 1968; Bearden et al., 1989), and the
present study validates that Indian customers are influenced by their social group which is a
factor contributing towards attitude for counterfeits. This information can help the original
fashion brand manufacturers to plan and re-establish their anti-counterfeiting strategies.
Element of personal image should be taken as a weapon against counterfeits (Zhou and
Belk, 2004) and should be targeted more specifically at a higher-income group with better
purchasing power. Before buying a product, people observe what others are buying and
using. Also, they consult and take information from others. So, original brand marketers
should aim for relationship building with their customers, which will help them in gaining
word-of-mouth promotions. It is also suggested that retailers should handle point of
purchase better so they can make more sales by social influence. Sales presentation should
be prepared before and salesmen should guide customers in making purchases.
People of low-income group in India are more value conscious. This may imply that if the
prices of original fashion brands become low and reasonable, there would be less preference of
buying counterfeits (Simone, 2006), and the customer would be willing to buy original fashion
brands where they can find very less price difference. Conversely, this will hamper the
exclusivity of original fashion brands where the higher-income group brand conscious
consumers buy it deliberately because it is a premium fashion product (Chaudhuri and
Majumdar, 2006). Also, they may perceive the product as fake or of a lower quality. Therefore,
the company should look for a correct price to preserve the image of a premium brand and a
fair price for value-conscious customers. For value-conscious customers, manufacturers of big
original brands can think of complementary gifts and point-based gifts. Value-based offers can
be given to customers, and the company should keep a track about their customers through
data analytics and give customised discounts. Low-income group customers are brand
conscious and buy counterfeits, for those manufacturers can offer brand extensions where they
can provide a lower range of products for value-conscious and materialistic customers.
Counterfeiting of luxury fashion brands is a big problem which is spread across the globe.
The issue of counterfeiting is rampant in India and everyone should work together to curb it. The
government ought to take some responsibility to educate the people about the negative impacts of
counterfeit products. Penalties and punishments can be imposed on both the buyers and sellers if
 caught doing counterfeit-related activities. The practice of anti-counterfeiting is not well-planned Purchase of
and properly executed. So, adequate steps should be taken so that this problem can be solved. counterfeit
The problem is Indian consumers do not perceive the counterfeit trade as illegal and, hence,
is indifferent towards the lawfulness and the legality of the trade (Shine and Sabrina, 2014).
fashion
Future research could be conducted on the Indians’ perception of ethical issues in purchasing products
counterfeits. Other demographic variables like age and education could be taken as a
moderating factor in studying the factors influencing attitude towards counterfeit. A
comparative analysis could also be done on factors affecting consumer purchase of counterfeit
fashion products and original fashion products. A good research can be taken in future on the
factors influencing purchase of counterfeit for different product types.

References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall,
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K. (2001), “Spot the difference: consumer responses
towards counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-235.
BASCAP Report (2009), Research Report on “Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions on Counterfeiting
and Piracy”, available at: www.iccwbo.org/bascap (accessed 14 June 2011).
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-481.
Bian, X. and Moutinho, L. (2009), “An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase
consideration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 368-378.
Bian, X. and Moutinho, L. (2011), “Counterfeits and branded products: effects of counterfeit ownership”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 379-393.
Bian, X. and Veloutsou, C. (2007), “Consumers’ attitudes regarding non-deceptive counterfeit brands in
the UK and China”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 211-222.
Budiman, S. (2012), “Analysis of consumer attitudes to intention of purchase counterfeiting luxury
fashion products of counterfeiting bag product in Indonesia”, International Journal of
Management, Economics and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Chadha, R. (2007), “From Mao suits to Armani”, Advertising Age, Vol. 78 No. 2, p. 27.
Chaudhuri, H.R. and Majumdar, S. (2006), “Of diamonds and desires: understanding conspicuous
consumption from a contemporary marketing perspective”, Academy of Marketing Science
Review, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 2-18.
Cordell, V.V., Wongtada, N. and Kieschnick, R.L. (1996), “Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness
attitudes and product traits as determinants”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
De Matos, C.A., Ituassu, C.T. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2007), “Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a
review and extension”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 36-47.
Djuhardi, S.A. and Kusumawati, A. (2017), “The influencing factors on consumer’s attitude towards
counterfeit branded sneaker shoes and their impact to purchase intention”, Jurnal Administrasi
Bisnis, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 86-95.
Eisend, M. and Schuchert-Guler, P. (2006), “Explaining counterfeit purchases: a review and preview”,
Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2006 No. 12, pp. 1-25.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory
of Research, Addison Wesley.
Forsythe, S.M. and Shi, B. (2003), “Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 867-875.
 JIBR Franses, P.H. and Lede, M. (2012), “Income, cultural norms and purchases of counterfeits”, Econometric
Institute Report 2012-26, available at: http://repub.eur.nl/pub/37618/EI2012-26.pdf (accessed 5
May 2016).
Furnham, A. and Valgeirsson, H. (2007), “The effect of life values and materialism on buying
counterfeit products”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 677-685.
Gentry, J.W., Putrevu, S. and Shultz II, C.J. (2006), “The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 245-256.
Gentry, J.W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C. and Commuri, S. (2001), “How now ralph Lauren? The
separation of Brand and product in a counterfeit culture”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 28, pp. 258-265.
Grossman, G. and Shapiro, C. (1988), “Foreign counterfeiting of status goods”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 79-100.
Ha, N.M. and Tam, H.L. (2015), “Attitudes and purchase intention towards counterfeiting luxurious
fashion products in Vietnam”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 7 No. 11,
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

pp. 207-221.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Hamelin, N., Nwankwo, S. and Hadouchi, R. (2013), “Faking brands: consumer responses to
counterfeiting”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 159-170.
Ian Phau, I., Teah, M. and Lee, A. (2009), “Targeting buyers of counterfeits of luxury brands: a study on
attitudes of Singaporean consumers”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Jurgita, S., Aiste, D. and Ruta, A. (2013), “Factors influencing intent to buy counterfeits of luxury
goods”, Economics and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4.
Kattoulas, V. (2002), “Bags of trouble”, Far Eastern Economic Review, Vol. 165 No. 11, pp. 52-55.
Kempen, L.V. (2003), “Fooling the eyes of the beholder: deceptives status signalling among the
poor in developing countries”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 157-177.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2011), Marketing Management, 14th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kwong, K.K., Yau, O.M.H., Lee, J.S.Y. and Tse, A.C.B. (2003), “The effect of attitudinal and demographic
factors on intention to buy pirated CDs: the case of Chinese consumers”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 223-235.
L’Oreal (2010), “L’Oreal shows continuing strong growth”, available at: www.lorealfinance.com/eng/
news-release/october-21-2010-724.htm
Martineau, P. (1968), “Social class and spending behaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23,
pp. 274-278.
Mason, R.S. (2001), “Conspicuous consumption: a literature review”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 26-39.
Matos, C.A., Cristiana, T.I. and Carlos, A.R. (2007), “Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review
and extension”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 36-47.
Mellott, D.W. (1983), Fundamentals of Consumer Behaviour, Penn Well Publishing Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Mitchell, V.M. (1998), “A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 171-183.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3,
pp. 248-292.
Penz, E. and Stottinger, B. (2005), “Forget the real thing – take the copy! An explanatory model for
the volitional purchase of counterfeit products”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32,
pp. 568-575.
 Phau, I. and Teah, M. (2009), “Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of Purchase of
attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 15-27. counterfeit
Phau, I., Teah, M. and Lee, A. (2009), “Targeting buyers of counterfeits of luxury brands: a study on fashion
attitudes of Singaporean consumers”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for products
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Prakash, G. and Pathak, P. (2017), “Determinants of counterfeit purchase: a study on young consumers
of India”, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 208-211.
Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 303-316.
Shine, P.S.P. and Sabrina, O.S. (2014), “Predicting intention to purchase counterfeit products: extending
the theory of planned behavior”, International Research Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 109-120.
Downloaded by Kent State University At 20:58 28 January 2018 (PT)

Simone, J.T. Jr (2006), “Silk market fakes – light at the end of the tunnel: a new strategy holds promise
for fighting fakes”, The China Business Review, January, pp. 16-17, pp. 44-46.
Stephen, G., Stephen, M., John, N.K. and Mary, M.N. (2014), “An analysis on dynamics that lead to
counterfeit purchasing behavior of ICT products among youths”, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 8.
Stravinskiene, J., Dovaliene, A. and Ambrazeviciute, R. (2013), “Factors influencing intent to buy
counterfeits of luxury goods”, Economics and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 761-768.
Sunitha, T., Justus, T.F.S. and Ramesh, M. (2012), “Determinants of perceived risk in purchase of car”,
Pacific Business Review International, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 35-43.
Tan, B. (2002), “Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated
software”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
Trinh, V.D. and Phau, I. (2011), “Influence of materialism and life satisfaction on consumer willingness
to buy counterfeit luxury Brands” presented at International Conference “Luxury and
Counterfeiting”, 9-10th June, WESFORD, Geneva.
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H. and Ouyang, M. (2005), “Purchasing pirated software: an initial
examination of Chinese consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 340-351.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. and Sen, S. (2009), “Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Zhou, N. and Belk, R.W. (2004), “Chinese consumer readings of global and local advertising appeals”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 63-76.

Further reading
Phillips, T. (2005), Knockoff: The Deadly Trade in Counterfeit Goods, Kogan page, Sterling, VA.

Corresponding author
Vinita Bhatia can be contacted at: vinitabhatia06@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com