Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Schadenfreude, attitude and the purchase intentions of a counterfeit

luxury brand
François Marticotte ⁎, Manon Arcand
Department of Marketing, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, Case postale 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Luxury brand counterfeiting is illegal and its harmful effects on genuine brands and on the wider society are well
Received 8 May 2016 known. Nonetheless, it has not prevented consumers to buy copies. This study introduces a new variable, Scha-
Received in revised form 22 December 2016 denfreude – the pleasure felt in response to another's misfortune – and examines how this emotion relates to the
Accepted 26 December 2016
intention to purchase a counterfeit, the attitude toward the original brand, and the attitude toward the counter-
Available online 10 January 2017
feit. An online questionnaire was completed by 420 respondents who were presented a scenario involving the
Keywords:
Louis Vuitton brand and a counterfeit. Using structural equation modeling, four hypotheses were supported.
Schadenfreude Major findings show that Schadenfreude is positively correlated with the intention to buy and the attitude to-
Emotion ward counterfeiting and negatively correlated with the attitude toward the original brand. Luxury goods firms
Counterfeiting should be aware of the potential negative effects of Schadenfreude.
Luxury © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Brand
Attitude

1. Introduction
Counterfeiting – producing and selling fake products illegally passed
off as a registered brand (Turunen & Laaksonen, 2011) – is universally
considered as a criminal act. Counterfeiting can be deceptive or non-
deceptive, depending on whether consumers are aware that they are
being offered a fake product. The main purpose of non-deceptive coun-
terfeits may be to satisfy their consumers (Tom, Garibaldi, Zeng, &
Pilcher, 1998; Kim & Karpova, 2010). This study deals exclusively with
non-deceptive counterfeiting, that is when the consumer is aware that
he/she is in presence of a fake product.
The fact that counterfeiting is illegal has not slowed the surge in sales
of fake products. According to a report produced by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, the counterfeit industry was
worth more than $460 billion in 2013, the equivalent of up to 2.5% of
legal world trade (OECD, 2016). Acknowledging that it is difficult to cal-
culate accurate figures, some observers deem those estimates to be con-
servative (Chiu & Leng, 2016). Many reasons are invoked to explain why
people are still interested in counterfeit products despite their illegal
status and the ethical issues that arise when buying them (Ha &
Lennon, 2006; Phau & Teah, 2009; Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009; Kim &
Karpova, 2010; Tang, Tian, & Zaichkowsky, 2014). The lower price of
counterfeits (vs. genuine brands) appears to be the primary factor driv-
ing sales (Tom et al., 1998; Phau, Prendergast, & Chuen, 2001; Eisend &
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marticotte.francois@uqam.ca (F. Marticotte).
Schuchert-Güler, 2006; Ha & Lennon, 2006; Lee & Yoo, 2009; Turunen &
Laaksonen, 2011; Radon, 2012; Chiu & Leng, 2016).
Counterfeits can only exist if the genuine brand has great value for
consumers (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; Juggessur & Cohen, 2009;
Turunen & Laaksonen, 2011) and if consumers are interested in buying
copies rather than the original product (Bloch, Bush, & Campbell, 1993).
Lee and Yoo (2009) argue that the more powerful the brand, the greater
the likelihood that it will be counterfeited. This is even more true for
product categories where demand is high and production technology
is low (Chiu & Leng, 2016), as is the case for luxury fashion brands. De-
mand continues to flourish because consumers try to show their social
status through luxury brands and because they want to follow fashion
trends (Bloch et al., 1993; Phau & Teah, 2009).
Considerable research had focused on identifying and evaluating the
antecedents of the consumer's decision to buy counterfeit products in
general (Bloch et al., 1993; Cordell, Wongtada, & Kieschnick, 1996;
Penz & Stöttinger, 2005; Ha & Lennon, 2006) and counterfeit luxury
brand products more specifically (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; Commuri,
2009; Juggessur & Cohen, 2009; Phau & Teah, 2009; Wilcox et al.,
2009 ; Perez, Castano, & Quintanilla, 2010 ; Radon, 2012; Doss &
Robinson, 2013; Castano & Perez, 2014; Tang et al., 2014). Several stud-
ies have shown that the attitude toward the counterfeit product is an
antecedent of buying counterfeits (Tom et al., 1998; Koklic, 2011; Viot,
Le Roux, & Krémer, 2014). A handful of studies have focused on how
consumers feel about fake products (de Matos, Ituassu, & Rossi, 2007;
Kim, Cho, & Johnson, 2009; Zampetakis, 2014), but much less is
known about how consumers feel about the brands that are the target
of counterfeiting. This study aims to fill that gap by introducing a new

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.010
0148-2963/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
176 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
potentially explanatory variable: Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude can be
described as the “pleasure felt in response to another's misfortune”
(Hickman & Ward, 2007, p. 314). Rather than focusing on the emotions
usually evoked by counterfeits, such as shame, pride and fear
(Zampetakis, 2014), this study targets the feelings evoked by the genu-
ine brand that is copied and how those feelings interact with the con-
sumer's attitudes toward the genuine brand and toward the
counterfeit, and with their intention to buy counterfeits. To the best of
our knowledge, Schadenfreude has not previously been examined as a
potential factor influencing the consumer's purchase intentions toward
a counterfeit product. This study is thus exploratory in nature and is
structured as follows. The theoretical concept of Schadenfreude and its
links with counterfeiting and luxury products will first be presented.
This is followed by the elaboration of several hypotheses and the meth-
odology and results will then be presented. The paper concludes with
the discussion, recommendation for brand managers and suggestions
for future research.
2. Literature
Emotions are presumed to be important factors explaining consum-
er behavior (Johnson & Stewart, 2005). An emotion is defined as “a
mental state that results from processing, or appraising, personally rel-
evant information” (Johnson & Stewart, 2005: p. 4). These mental states
are related to specific referents, meaning that emotions are connected
to something specific. In this study, the target (i.e., referent) of the emo-
tions of interest is a brand that has been illegally copied. We posed the
question: “How do consumers feel about the original brand that has
been counterfeited?”
According to appraisal theory, emotions can have a functional pur-
pose as they can motivate an individual toward one behavior rather
than another (Johnson & Stewart, 2005). Thus, consumers who feel
bad about counterfeits should be less likely to buy them. This responsi-
ble behavior would be in line with their moral judgment (Kim et al.,
2009; Kim & Johnson, 2014). However, considering the size of the mar-
ket for fake products, some consumers do not feel bad enough to stop
buying them. For instance, some consumers may think that buying
counterfeits is not bad at all, because it is seen as normal (Zampetakis,
2014). Others may think that buying counterfeits is bad, but they do
not feel strongly enough to refrain from buying them (Kim et al.,
2009), as emotions are composed of two dimensions: valence and in-
tensity (Johnson & Stewart, 2005). Kim and Johnson (2014) and
Zampetakis (2014) showed that consumers assess both sides of the sit-
uation (good vs. bad) simultaneously and that this struggle between
good and bad is typical when buying luxury brand counterfeits. Coun-
terfeit products evoke positive emotions (e.g., interest, happiness,
pride), as well as negative ones (e.g., fear, anger, distress, guilt,
shame). For instance, positive emotions may derive from the pleasure
of getting a good deal by buying a brand at a cheaper price. The same in-
dividuals may experience feelings of discomfort, such as guilt and re-
gret, which have been frequently identified as negative emotions
linked to buying counterfeits (Zampetakis, 2014). The mix of positive
and negative emotions is likely related to a comparison of the counter-
feit and the genuine product bearing on the purchase intention.
We posit that there are situations in which individuals might feel
good about seeing the genuine brand suffer the negative effects of
counterfeiting. Such Schadenfreude would be a positive, pleasurable
emotion (Johnson & Stewart, 2005). In the next section, we will discuss
what Schadenfreude is and its potential relationship to counterfeiting.
2.1. Schadenfreude and counterfeiting
There is extensive literature about the negative effects of counter-
feits on original brands (Bloch et al., 1993; Eisend & Schuchert-Güler,
2006; Ha & Lennon, 2006). The original brand can see its brand equity
damaged, its brand prestige sullied and its intellectual property under
siege (Ha & Lennon, 2006; Field, Bergiel, Bergiel, & Balsmeier, 2008;
Phau & Teah, 2009). Counterfeiting is illegal because the original
brand is likely to be harmed by the fake product. The adverse effects
on the economy and on society as a whole (job losses, growth of the un-
derground economy, links with organized crime and terrorist organiza-
tions) are also well documented (Ha & Lennon, 2006; Field et al., 2008).
Consumers of the original branded products may also suffer damages
due to the existence of copies (Commuri, 2009). Consumer of counter-
feits may also become victims due to the additional risks associated
with purchasing imitation products relative to the genuine version
(Bloch et al., 1993; Ha & Lennon, 2006).
It can thus be said that luxury brands are “victims” of counterfeit
products and suffer the “misfortune” of negative impacts resulting
from the counterfeit and this “violates commonly shared norms in the
marketplace” (Penz & Stöttinger, 2005, p. 570). In the face of the misfor-
tune of other, two emotional reactions are possible: a negative reaction
of sympathy for the victim of the misfortune or a positive reaction
(James, Kavanagh, Jonason, Chonody, & Scrutton, 2014).
A positive reaction to a negative outcome experienced by someone
else is a human behavior that has been noted since Ancient Greece
(Kramer, Yucel-Aybat, & Lau-Gesk, 2011), but it was only in the 1950s
that this awkward emotion was really studied for the first time. In his
seminal work, Heider (1958) named it “Schadenfreude,” a German
word meaning “experiencing pleasure and joy at another's misfortune”
(Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014; p. 176), now used without transla-
tion in most languages. Some say that Schadenfreude is malicious, be-
cause it indicates a discordant relationship between the misfortune of
some and the pleasure felt by others (Leach, Spears, Branscombe, &
Doosje, 2003). Schadenfreude is thus interpreted as an undesirable
emotion in interpersonal relationships (Smith, Powell, Combs, &
Schurtz, 2009). It is linked with antisocial personality disorders such
as narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (James et al., 2014),
and is considered to be contrary to prevailing social norms (Kramer
et al., 2011). Empirical studies on Schadenfreude are relatively recent,
with the earliest appearing in the 1990s (Van Dijk, Goslinga, &
Ouwerkerk, 2008). Since then, most have focused on the psychology
of interpersonal relationships (Leach et al., 2003) and have often exam-
ined sports rivalries between fans (Dalakas & Phillips-Melancon, 2012;
Grohs, Reisinger, & Woisetschläger, 2015).
Research on the influence of Schadenfreude in a marketing context
has been limited to a handful of recent studies (Hickman & Ward,
2007; Veer, 2011; Dalakas & Phillips-Melancon, 2012; Japutra, Ekinci,
Simkin, & Nguyen, 2014; Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014; Marticotte,
Arcand, & Baudry, 2016). It has been examined as a factor influencing the
behavior of users of one brand against users of a competing brand
(Hickman & Ward, 2007; Japutra et al., 2014; Marticotte et al., 2016). In
these studies, the Schadenfreude was the consumers' happiness about
the misfortunes suffered by consumers of the rival brand. As was the
case for the psychology studies, the referent of the Schadenfreude is an-
other person, that is, consumers who prefer the rival brand. The role at-
tributed to Schadenfreude varies. It can arise from trash-talking within
the group to which the individual belongs when two rival groups are in-
volved (Hickman & Ward, 2007) or it can be a component of oppositional
brand loyalty (Japutra et al., 2014). For Veer (2011), Schadenfreude ex-
plains why some people peruse other people's Facebook pages, expecting
to find pleasure reading about the misfortunes experienced and posted
by others. Marticotte et al. (2016) argue that Schadenfreude may explain
in part the desire to harm a rival brand. In this current study, we examine
feelings Schadenfreude regarding the original luxury brand as such, rath-
er than its consumers, and we contend that Schadenfreude is directly
linked with the individual's attitudes, both toward the luxury brand
and toward the counterfeit, and their intention to buy the counterfeit.
Smith et al. (2009) argue that Schadenfreude can arise as a result of
three interrelated conditions: (a) personal gain, (b) resentment, and
(c) envy. The first condition is related to the fact that individuals can
sometimes benefit from the misfortunes of others. The pleasure comes
 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
from a mix of the joy felt seat seeing someone else suffer and the antic-
ipated pleasure of the resulting gain. In the situation of a luxury brand
vs. a counterfeit product, consumers hope to gain the benefit of the lux-
ury brand (i.e., conspicuousness and status) without having to pay the
normally high price for it. The other two reasons, resentment and
envy, considered the pillars of Schadenfreude in the psychology litera-
ture (Kramer et al., 2011), will be explained through social identity the-
ory (SIT).
2.2. Schadenfreude and social identity theory
Schadenfreude is closely related to social identity theory (SIT)
(Phillips-Melancon & Dalakas, 2014; Grohs et al., 2015), which holds
that people believe they belong to a social group and that their
group is different from other groups (Hickman & Ward, 2007; Smith
et al., 2009). People tend to see members of their ingroup more posi-
tively than members of the outgroup. This may be done by depicting
others in a negative light (Hickman & Ward, 2007) or by minimizing
negative information about the ingroup (Grohs et al., 2015). This cate-
gorization and identification with a specific group lead to stereotyping
that makes it easier to classify people into distinct groups. In a sports
context, Dalakas and Phillips-Melancon (2012) have shown that a
strong identification with a team increases the level of Schadenfreude
toward a rival team. In a situation where a luxury brand is competing
with a counterfeit, we posit that a positive attitude toward the coun-
terfeit product will foster more joyful feelings regarding the fact that
the original brand is being copied. Alternatively, such feelings may re-
sult from a negative attitude toward the genuine brand. Although the
genuine and counterfeit products may not target the same consumers,
the counterfeit may be perceived as an alternative to the genuine arti-
cle (Field et al., 2008). From the standpoint of the genuine brand, the
copy is definitely a particularly harmful threat given its illegal nature.
2.3. Schadenfreude and the luxury industry
Luxury is a social marker (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009). Luxury brands
naturally recreate distinct social groups, discriminating between the
upper classes and the rest of the population (Commuri, 2009;
Juggessur & Cohen, 2009; Kapferer & Bastien, 2009). People who are
not part of the luxury market may be envious of those who are. The
more inaccessible the genuine luxury brand is in reality or is perceived
to be, the greater the desire to possess it (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009).
Thus, the luxury industry is based on the envy that their products
arouse. Envy signifies covetousness, the desire to possess something
(advantages, success, possessions) that currently makes another person
happy. Many authors (e.g., Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Feather, Wenzel, &
McKee, 2013; James et al., 2014) assert that envy is at the core of Scha-
denfreude. Feather et al. (2013) specify that there are two kinds of envy:
hostile and benign. Benign envy is particularly well adapted to the lux-
ury brand market because it connotes “admiration for the other person
who has achieved a deserved positive outcome that is high on the lad-
der of achievement” (Feather et al., 2013; p. 576). The counterfeit indus-
try relies on the assumption that consumers want to buy the genuine
products in the first place, a desire which is likely to elicit emotions
about the genuine luxury brand (Zampetakis, 2014). An individual
who cannot afford the genuine luxury brand products may feel more
envious and resentful of those who own them because he/she would
like to be part of that wealthier, more privileged class (Berthon, Pitt,
Parent, & Berthon, 2009; Commuri, 2009; Doss & Robinson, 2013).
This could lead to more intense Schadenfreude (Feather et al., 2013).
But envy is not the same as Schadenfreude (Feather & Sherman, 2002;
Japutra et al., 2014), because envy is a negative feeling of discontent,
whereas Schadenfreude encompasses positive emotions (Japutra et al.,
2014). Thus, when intense envy is aroused, Schadenfreude is more like-
ly to be intense, because envy triggers the suffering of those who do not
have what they need to achieve happiness (Smith et al., 2009). Not
177
being able to join the elite group could also result in a feeling of compar-
ative inferiority engendering group-based envy (Nia & Zaichkowsky,
2000; Leach et al., 2003; Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Feather et al., 2013).
The rationale behind the luxury goods counterfeit market, therefore,
is that people would like to buy the genuine brands, but they cannot af-
ford to do so (Wilcox et al., 2009). Consumers of counterfeits want to
project a desired social image that the original luxury brand conveys
(Perez et al., 2010). The genuine luxury product and the counterfeit
are both perceived as having social and personal functions, although
the counterfeit has mainly social functions: “The social meanings at-
tached to luxury center on gaining admiration and appreciation, as
those attached to counterfeits focus on social group acceptance”
(Turunen & Laaksonen, 2011, p. 472). Given that counterfeit products
are as conspicuous as the genuine brand (Phau & Teah, 2009; Turunen
& Laaksonen, 2011; Radon, 2012), savvy consumers may take pleasure
in seeing the original brand being copied and thus democratized,
allowing more people to own the desired products and display the
associated image. Perez et al. (2010) have found three reasons
why people buy and consume counterfeit brands: being efficient
by optimizing their financial resources, having fun, and fooling
others. This is particularly true for counterfeited luxury brands that
carry the prestige of the original brand without the price of the gen-
uine product (Bloch et al., 1993; Penz & Stöttinger, 2005; Phau &
Teah, 2009; Perez et al., 2010).
Finally, Schadenfreude can also stem from a feeling of resentment
(van Dijk et al., 2008; Feather et al., 2013). Resentment refers to the
feeling of bitterness elicited by a situation perceived as unfair. A con-
sumer may feel Schadenfreude because he/she believes that the suc-
cess of the original brand is not deserved (Leach et al., 2003; Cikara
& Fiske, 2012; Feather et al., 2013). Thus, when a luxury brand is
counterfeited, the misfortune experienced by the brand restores bal-
ance to what had been seen as an unfair (Smith et al., 2009). The fact
that a cheaper version with more reasonable profit margins can be
purchased, fixes the previously unfair situation (Ang, Cheng, Lim, &
Tambyah, 2001; Penz & Stöttinger, 2005) and it is the manifestation
of consumer unhappiness with regard to the original brand
(Juggessur & Cohen, 2009).
Resentment may also take the form of retaliation expressed by
consumers. Because the original brand may be perceived snobbish,
consumers may feel they can take advantage of the brand's conspic-
uousness without having to deal with its unfair practices (e.g., high
prices, selected points of sale) by buying a counterfeit. Tom et al.
(1998) found that buying counterfeits was a way for consumers to
“beat the system.” The feeling of resentment then approaches what
is referred to the “Robin Hood syndrome” (Kwong, Yu, Leung, &
Wang, 2009) or an anti-big-business mentality (Viot et al., 2014).
It that case, the success of the genuine brand is seen as undeserved.
Given (1) that emotions are determinants of behavior (Johnson &
Stewart, 2005) and (2) the foundations of SIT with its links to Schaden-
freude and two of its pillars, envy and resentment, we propose the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H1: There is a positive relationship between Schadenfreude and buying
intentions toward a counterfeit product.
2.4. Attitudes, intention and Schadenfreude
According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), an attitude to-
ward a behavior can predict intent (Ajzen, 1985). Thus, the more posi-
tive the attitude toward a product, the higher the buying intentions
will be (Chiu & Leng, 2016). Support for this theory had been confirmed
on many occasions with regard to counterfeits (Lee & Yoo, 2009; Chiu &
Leng, 2016). In addition, the literature asserts that attitude can be an an-
tecedent of emotions (Johnson & Stewart, 2005). Conceptually, atti-
tudes are thus determinants of emotion (e.g., Schadenfreude) as well
178 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
as of intent (e.g., buying intentions). In this study, the consumers' atti-
tude toward the original brand and the attitude toward counterfeiting
were assessed as potential determinants of Schadenfreude and their
buying intentions with regard to a counterfeit.
2.4.1. Attitude toward the original brand
Consumers develop relationships with brands for reasons other than
their functional utility (Fournier, 1998). They can be attached to a brand
because it conveys an image they are comfortable with. The very exis-
tence of counterfeiting ensues from an original brand toward which
consumers have a positive attitude. If the (luxury) brand did not elicit
envy, there would be no interest in a counterfeit product bearing the
brand logo or any other signs associated with the original brand
(Juggessur & Cohen, 2009).
Strong brands can be partners in a relationship (Fournier, 1998),
helping consumers define themselves as individuals (Fournier, 1998;
Thomas, 2015). Castano and Perez (2014) have shown that consumers
who simultaneously own both the original product and a counterfeit
have a higher brand love for the original. This finding was explained
by a better fit between the consumer's self-concept and the values con-
veyed by the brand. In other words, consumers identify more with the
original than with the counterfeit, even though the latter transmits
the same image (Castano & Perez, 2014).
If a consumer has a positive attitude toward a brand and has devel-
oped an affective relationship with it, a counterfeit may be perceived as
a threat, as the consumer may identify as being in the same ingroup as
the brand. In such a case, attacks on the brand may be perceived as a
personal attack on the consumer. In this case, the consumer would
then have a normal reaction of feeling empathy toward the original
brand rather than feeling happy about its misfortune. According to the
psychology literature, the intensity of Schadenfreude is decreased
when the victim of a misfortune is a member of the ingroup. A positive
attitude toward the genuine brand would thus lead to a lower level of
Schadenfreude.
It is also well known that attitude is related to buying intentions (de
Matos et al., 2007). Thus, a more favorable predisposition toward a
brand should lead to higher purchase intent. Consequently, a positive
attitude toward the original brand would be a deterrent to buying the
copy because the consumer knows that doing so is detrimental to the
genuine brand (Tom et al., 1998). This leads us to the following
hypotheses:
H2a: There is a negative relationship between attitude toward the orig-
inal brand and the level of Schadenfreude.
H2b: There is a negative relationship between attitude toward the orig-
inal brand and the purchase intentions toward the counterfeit.
2.4.2. Attitude toward counterfeiting
Numerous studies have shown that the consumer's attitude toward
counterfeits is an antecedent of their intention to buy counterfeits or
their actual purchase of counterfeits (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006;
de Matos et al., 2007; Kwong et al., 2009; Marcketti & Shelley, 2009;
Phau & Teah, 2009; Phau, Teah, & Lee, 2009; Kim & Karpova, 2010;
Koklic, 2011; Viot et al., 2014). There seems to be no consensus, howev-
er, about the components of this attitude, nor the number of factors
composing this construct (Kwong et al., 2009; Viot et al., 2014).
Among the various ways of conceptualizing the attitude toward
counterfeiting in the luxury industry, Phau and Teah (2009) have
proposed a two-dimensional construct composed of perceptions of
counterfeits and social consequences. Given that the former is a
measure of how similar to the original product the counterfeit is
perceived to be, this factor will hereafter be referred to as “similarity
perception.”
2.4.2.1. Similarity perception. The appearance of the product is an impor-
tant reason for buying fashion counterfeits (Kim & Karpova, 2010) and
the brand logo the counterfeit bears is of paramount importance be-
cause “the decision to buy a counterfeit product mainly represents a
brand decision” (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006; p. 3).
Counterfeits are copies based on an original, but the quality of the
copy varies (Chiu & Leng, 2016). Today's technology, however, makes
it possible to produce copies that are closer to the original (Eisend &
Schuchert-Güler, 2006; Lee & Yoo, 2009; Phau & Teah, 2009; Phau
et al., 2009). Consumers of counterfeits are interested in the image con-
veyed by the original brand (e.g., design, logo). Counterfeits can convey
the same image if the copy is of good quality and if it is difficult or im-
possible for the buyer and others to differentiate the genuine from the
fake (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006; Field et al., 2008; Lee & Yoo,
2009; Chiu & Leng, 2016). According to Zampetakis (2014), perceived
similarity is the cause of the mixed feelings (shame, guilt, pride) experi-
enced by consumers of counterfeits. When the similarity is high, con-
sumers may conclude that the original does not deserve the credit it
receives, because the counterfeit can produce the same effect at a
lower price. In other words, the counterfeit has a higher perceived
value than the original product (Field et al., 2008). For instance, Tom
et al. (1998), Lai and Zaichkowsky (1999), Penz and Stöttinger (2008)
and Poddar, Foreman, Banerjee, and Ellen (2012) have all shown that
the higher the perceived similarity with regard to criteria such as qual-
ity, physical appearance and durability, the more likely it is that the con-
sumer is willing to buy the counterfeit. Kim and Karpova (2010) have
found that the consumers who are more “value conscious” have a great-
er willingness to buy counterfeits. This value is a mix of price, quality
and the image conveyed by the counterfeit (Lee & Yoo, 2009). The con-
sumer may take pleasure in seeing a less expensive, acceptable alterna-
tive to the luxury product, and believe that the price asked for the
original is not deserved. This judgment refers back to resentment, one
of the theoretical pillars of Schadenfreude. This discussion leads us to
formulate the following two hypotheses:
H3a: There is a positive relationship between the level of perceived
similarity (between the counterfeit and the genuine article) and the
level of Schadenfreude.
H3b: There is a positive relationship between the level of perceived
similarity (between the counterfeit and the genuine article) and the
purchase intentions toward the counterfeit.
2.4.2.2. Negative social consequences. Another component of the attitude
toward the counterfeit is the individual's sensitivity regarding the neg-
ative social consequences of counterfeiting (Phau & Teah, 2009). Buying
intentions toward counterfeits are negatively related to the consumer's
attitude toward respecting laws (Cordell et al., 1996; De Matos et al.,
2007). Kim and Karpova (2010) have found that consumers who are
less prone to conform to social expectations are more likely to have a
positive attitude toward counterfeiting. This is due to the illegality of
the counterfeit market and its ill effects on society. In other words,
being less sensitive about following rules or underestimating the nega-
tive impacts of counterfeiting will lead to a higher likelihood of buying a
counterfeit (Lee & Yoo, 2009). Lee and Yoo (2009) argue that consumers
buy counterfeits for hedonistic purposes (as is the case with luxury
brand counterfeits) and thus will be less sensitive to the negative social
impacts of the counterfeits on a collective level, relative to the personal
gains derived from possessing the counterfeit product.
On the other hand, it has been shown that consumers who are more
respectful of subjective norms are less likely to buy counterfeits (de
Matos et al., 2007; Chiu & Leng, 2016). Subjective norms are the social
pressures that individuals feel pushing them to comply with the rules
governing our society. Viot et al. (2014) found that consumers' percep-
tions of the risks the counterfeits pose for the economy, the firm and the
brand are predictors of societal order. Given that counterfeiting is a
 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
phenomenon generally disapproved of in Western societies, respect for
subjective norms may persuade consumers to reject counterfeits be-
cause they are bad for the society.
By extension, Schadenfreude is considered to be unconventional. It is
not seen as a socially valued or acceptable emotion. The normal feeling
to have when someone experiences a misfortune is empathy or sympa-
thy, not happiness or pleasure. In other words, it is logical to think that
an individual who is sensitive to the ill effects of counterfeiting
(i.e., respectful of social norms) will exhibit coherent behavior as a re-
sponse to the negative side effects on the original brand and will feel
empathy for the brand. This leads us to the following two hypotheses:
H4a: There is a negative relationship between sensitivity to negative
social consequences and the level of Schadenfreude.
H4b: There is a negative relationship between sensitivity to negative so-
cial consequences and the purchase intentions toward the counterfeit.
Fig. 1 presents all of the hypotheses and the conceptual framework.
3. Method
There is no single best way to measure Schadenfreude. To date, two
approaches have been used in most studies. The first approach uses sce-
narios in which the level of Schadenfreude is manipulated. The second
approach uses a measurement scale, which is the method selected for
this study. Although no measurement scale stands out as the most
widely used, those who consider Schadenfreude as a multidimensional
construct address the notions of pleasure, joy and satisfaction in the
questionnaire items (Feather et al., 2013). In this study, five items
taken from previous studies by Feather (1989) and Van Dijk et al.
(2008) were used. The last two items (“I sympathize with Louis
Vuitton” and “Louis Vuitton deserves what is happening”) did not load
well with the other items and were removed. The items concerning
the consumer's attitude toward counterfeiting and their assessment of
the similarity between the genuine product and the copy were both
taken from the Phau and Teah's (2009) scale measuring the attitude to-
ward luxury brand counterfeits. Their study revealed a two-factor solu-
tion, with one factor called “similarity” and the other “social
consequences.” In this study, the same two factors emerged. Attitude to-
ward the original brand was assessed using the scale developed by
Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell (2001). The intention to buy the
Fig. 1. The conceptual model.
179
counterfeit presented in the scenario was measured using a single
item (“I'm unlikely to make a purchase/I'm likely to make a purchase”).
The scales were included in an online questionnaire. A hyper-
link was sent by graduate students enrolled in a course on brand-
ing through their Facebook accounts. According to Chang and
Vowles (2013), online surveys provide a number of benefits when
compared with their traditional counterparts, especially when
they touch on sensitive subjects open to social desirability bias, as
is the case for counterfeiting. In addition to being time-efficient
and flexible for respondents, online surveys eliminate concerns
about interviewer bias and geographical boundaries, as respon-
dents can be reached anywhere in the world. The respondents
were exposed to one of three scenarios describing an online retail-
er selling non-deceptive fake Louis Vuitton products. The same in-
troductory text was used in all three scenarios: “A website that is
not affiliated with Louis Vuitton is selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton
products of good quality at much lower prices than the originals.
The retailer sells products for both men and women. It is clearly
stated on the opening webpage that the products are counterfeits.”
The three scenarios differed in the text at the end of the setup,
which was used to determine whether the firm's reaction would
trigger a specific emotion in consumers. Scenario 2 added that
Louis Vuitton was planning to sue the reseller of the counterfeits.
Scenario 3 said that both the reseller and the buyer were subject
to legal actions by Louis Vuitton. Because the level of Schadenfreu-
de and purchase intentions toward the counterfeit products were
not significantly different for the three scenarios (F = 0.83;
p N 0.10 for Schadenfreude, F = 1.732; p N 0.10 for purchase
intent), the aggregate results will be presented here.
The choice of the Louis Vuitton brand and the wording of the scenar-
ios are consistent with the results of two previous focus groups involv-
ing people between 20 and 30 years old. Among other things, the
participants were asked to identify the luxury brand most likely to be
counterfeited and the most likely to be sold online. Louis Vuitton was
the most cited brand for both situations. These findings are consistent
with the fact that Louis Vuitton is indeed one of the top five
counterfeited brands worldwide (Kim & Karpova, 2010) and one of
the four brands having the most copies, based on global customs sei-
zures (OECD, 2016).
The questions were ordered to minimize demand effects, beginning
with the items regarding the respondents' attitude toward the genuine
brand, followed by the items regarding their attitude toward
counterfeiting. After the presentation of the scenario, the level of Scha-
denfreude was assessed. The respondents' buying intentions were
assessed last.
4. Results
4.1. Sample characteristics
Four-hundred and twenty (420) usable questionnaires were proc-
essed. Respondents were mostly female (62.8%), between 18 and
25 years old (57.4%) and highly educated (77% had a university
degree). Close to 40% (38.6%) of the sample indicated that they had
previously bought counterfeit Louis Vuitton products and 17.8% had
previously bought, or received as a gift, a genuine Louis Vuitton
product, the luxury brand used in this study. Overall, the level of Scha-
denfreude was not related to the prior purchase of a genuine Louis
Vuitton (F = 0.905; p N 0.10) or a counterfeit product (F = 1.133;
p N 0.10).
4.2. Psychometric properties of the scales
The psychometric properties of the scales and the hypothesis testing
for the structural model were analyzed using EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2004).
Composite reliability values, factor loadings and average variance
180 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183

Table 1
Reliability measures of the scales.

Constructs and items Composite Reliability Standardized factor loading Average variance extracted
λ ρavc

Brand attitude (Louis Vuitton) 0.92 0.75

- Unsatisfactory/satisfactory 0.81
- Negative/positive 0.94
- Bad/good 0.93
- Disliked/liked 0.78
Similarity perception (genuine brand vs. counterfeit brand) 0.80 0.67
- Counterfeits of luxury brands are as reliable as the original version 0.75
- Counterfeits of luxury brands have similar quality to the original 0.89
Negative social consequences 0.83 0.62
- Buying counterfeits of luxury brands infringes intellectual property 0.59
- Buying counterfeits of luxury brands will hurt the luxury goods industry 0.83
- Buying counterfeits of luxury brands damages interests and rights of legitimate/original 0.91
Schadenfreude (Louis Vuitton) 0.91 0.77
- I enjoy what happened to Louis Vuitton 0.79
- I like what happened to Louis Vuitton 0.98
- I am satisfied with what happened to Louis Vuitton 0.85

extracted (AVE) were calculated to assess the reliability of the mea- 4.4. Follow-up analyses
sures. The results show (Table 1) that composite reliability values varied
between 0.80 and 0.92, above the recommended threshold of 0.70 To increase the utility of the findings for luxury brand managers in-
(Nunally, 1978; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The factors loadings (λ) are terested in understanding the process that leads consumers to buy fake
all above 0.70 (except one item with a λ of 0.59 that was retained to products, post-hoc analyses were performed to reveal potential moder-
increase the content validity of the construct) and the AVE for all the ating effects in the model based on (1) the consumer's sense of belong-
constructs ranged from 0.62 to 0.77, above the 0.50 threshold recom- ing relative to the genuine brand and (2) their familiarity with
mended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The AVE for each construct counterfeit purchases.
was also greater than the squared correlation coefficients between fac- Conceptually, SIT theory suggests that when people think they be-
tors, as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) as evidence of dis- long to a group or when they have an attachment to it, they will behave
criminant validity (see Table 2). in a positive manner favoring the group's interests and thus their own
(Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013). Buyers of genuine Louis Vuitton
products would thus be expected to react more favorably toward the
4.3. SEM analysis and hypotheses testing original brand, have less favorable attitudes toward counterfeits, and
be reluctant to purchase counterfeits because they pose a threat to the
The adequacy of the structural model was then estimated (χ2 = original brand and its consumers. Empirically, the findings of Nia and
122.05(59), p = 0.000; CFI = 0.981; SRMR = 0.079; RMSEA = 0.05 Zaichkowsky (2000), Commuri (2009) and Giovannini, Xu, and
[0.037–0.062]). According to the parameters recommended by Hu and Thomas (2015), among others, provides some support for this argu-
Bentler (1999) for CFI (cut-off value of 0.95) and SRMR (cut-off value ment. On the other hand, buyers of counterfeits would be expected to
of 0.08) to supplement chi-square tests, the proposed model fits the react more favorably toward fake products (Phau et al., 2009). This
data well. Further, the χ2/df ratio is b5, suggesting a good fit according may be explained by familiarity with the counterfeit. Familiarity is relat-
to Joreskog (1969).1 ed to the consumer's cumulative amount of experience (Alba &
Turning to the hypothesis testing, the results show that Schaden- Hutchinson, 1987). In the case of buyers of counterfeits, various ways
freude toward the genuine luxury brand was significantly and positively of changing their habits have been proposed, with limited results,
correlated with purchase intentions toward the counterfeit, as proposed whether through education (e.g., Ha & Lennon, 2006; Marcketti &
by H1 (γ = 0.20, p b 0.05). Further, a positive attitude toward the Louis Shelley, 2009; Viot et al., 2014) or regulation (e.g., Albers-Miller,
Vuitton brand was negatively correlated with Schadenfreude 1999). Therefore, it is presumed that previous purchase of genuine
(γ = −0.29, p b 0.05) as well as with purchase intentions toward the Louis Vuitton products and familiarity with counterfeit products may
counterfeit brand (γ = − 0.24, p b 0.05), thus supporting H2a and b. be two relevant variables moderating the relationships found in the
Similarity perception between the genuine and fake product was posi- model (Fig. 2).
tively correlated with Schadenfreude (γ = 0.17, p b 0.05) and had a sig-
nificant positive impact on purchase intentions toward the counterfeits
(γ = 0.21, p b 0.05), supporting H3a and b. H4 posits negative relation-
ships between the social consequences associated with buying counter-
feit products and Schadenfreude (H4a) and between social Table 2
Convergent and discriminant validities of the measures (CFA, EQS 6.1).a
consequences and the purchase intentions toward the counterfeits
(H4b). H4a was supported (γ = − 0.26, p b 0.05), but H4b was not Construct 1 2 3 4 5
(p N 0.10). Therefore, Schadenfreude appears to act as a mediating var- Brand attitude (1) 0.75 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.02
iable between perceived social consequences and purchase intentions. Similarity (2) 0.67 0.02 0.07 0.05
The model explains 18% of the variance in Schadenfreude. The results Social consequences (3) 0.62 0.11 0.02
are presented in Fig. 2. Schadenfreude () 0.77 0.04
Purchase intent counterfeited (5) n/a
a
Average variance extracted appears on the diagonal (in bold) and squared correlation
1
The chi-square test is highly sensitive to sample size and is thus inflated here. is above the diagonal.
 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
Fig. 2. Results of the structural model (standardized coefficients).
Due to the limited number of respondents (n = 79) who had
previously bought (or received as a gift) the genuine brand, it
was not feasible to use multigroups analyses (EQS) to assess the
moderating impact of this variable. However, PROCESS (Hayes,
2012), a versatile modeling tool available for SPSS for moderation
analyses, was used to estimate its impact on the relationships in
the model (H1 to H4b). PROCESS provides a bias-corrected 95%
bootstrap confidence interval (CI) for the direct effect of the var-
iable as well as the moderating effect (interaction between the
moderator and the independent variable). The results show no di-
rect effect of prior purchase of Louis Vuitton products on Scha-
denfreude or purchase intention toward the counterfeits.
However, prior purchase moderates two relationships in the
model: H3b (p = 0.01) and H4a (p = 0.03). Similarity percep-
tions had a stronger positive effect on purchase intentions toward
the counterfeits when consumers had previous purchased Louis
Vuitton (γ = 0.42, p = 0.000) than when they had not (γ =
0.13, p = 0.007). In contrast, for consumers who had previously
purchased the genuine brand, negative social consequences had
no effect on Schadenfreude (p N 0.10), whereas this relationship
is negative and significant for non-purchasers (γ = − 0.27, p =
0.000).
The moderating effects of previous purchase of counterfeits on the
model were examined using multigroups analyses. The baseline
models were first established for both groups (Yes or No regarding
prior purchase of counterfeits; see Appendix A). The baseline models
presented an excellent fit for both groups (No: chi-square =
94.102(59), CFI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.048 (0.028–0.065), Yes: chi-
square = 85.591(59), CFI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.051 (0.024–0.074).
Testing for invariance (constraints) of factor loading paths was per-
formed to ensure equivalency of the measurement model across
groups, as well as the causal paths. The goodness-of-fit results for
multigroup invariance testing reveal that the model provides a good
fit (chi-square = 240.715(157), p = 0.000, CFI = 0.976, RMSEA =
0.05 (0.037–0.061). These results demonstrate the general equiva-
lence of the model specifications across sub-samples. Accordingly,
all paths (factor loadings and structural paths) are equivalent across
groups (all p N 0.10). Therefore, prior purchase of counterfeit prod-
ucts does not moderate any relationships in the model even though
subtle differences can be found in the separate models (Appendix A).
These results are somewhat in line with those of de Matos et al.
(2007), who found that counterfeit buyers tend to have a better attitude
toward the counterfeit but this attitude does not translate into higher
buying intentions.
181
5. Discussion and conclusion
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to address
how people feel about the misfortune suffered by a genuine luxury
brand when faced with a counterfeit version. With four hypotheses
supported, our findings clearly show that researchers should con-
sider including Schadenfreude to gain a more complete understand-
ing of how consumers feel about counterfeiting in the luxury
market. One interesting result is the confirmation of the expected
relationship between Schadenfreude and purchase intentions to-
ward counterfeits (H1). Traditionally, the luxury industry has tried
to restrict selling of counterfeits by constraining the supply or con-
trolling demand (Albers-Miller, 1999). The realization that Scha-
denfreude is a direct antecedent of future buying intentions
provides strategic knowledge for luxury brand managers. First, we
have argued that Schadenfreude is a consequence of envy and re-
sentment. The challenge for luxury firms is thus to find a balance be-
tween how much envy their brands arouse and the amount of
negative spillover such as Schadenfreude. The same reasoning ap-
plies to resentment. How much can a luxury brand ask for its prod-
ucts without triggering the feeling the price is exaggerated and
undeserved, thus eliciting Schadenfreude? Second, luxury firms
should also be aware that Schadenfreude can lead to trash-talking
(Hickman & Ward, 2007) and the desire to harm the brand
(Marticotte et al., 2016). The pleasure felt in response to the misfor-
tune of others may be a preliminary step to a rant against the brand.
Given that Schadenfreude is an internal emotion, its public expres-
sion may take the form of negative word-of-mouth against the gen-
uine brand. Not only do counterfeits directly harm the genuine
brand, but Schadenfreude may increase the adverse effects through
trash-talking the brand.
The findings show that a positive attitude toward the original
brand is a potential deterrent of Schadenfreude (H2a) and of
purchase intentions toward counterfeits (H2b). In light of this,
firms should strengthen their relationships with current and
prospective customers. Positioning the brand as authentic and
conveying psychological values must be considered. For the
same reasons, firms must emphasize that their products differ
from the counterfeits (H3a and b). More than ever, technology
has reduced the physical differences between genuine articles
and counterfeits, so the intangible differences must be empha-
sized. After all, luxury products are much more than the sum
of their physical assets. Educating potential customers about
what the brand stands for (e.g., storytelling, conveyed values,
physical features) is definitely a way to combat Schadenfreude
and the intent to purchase counterfeits. One managerial step
luxury firms can take would be to assert that buying the genuine
brand involves fewer risks (Ha & Lennon, 2006), even though
the genuine article and the counterfeit are perceived as similar.
As expected, consumers who were more sensitive to the nega-
tive social consequences of counterfeits exhibited lower levels
of Schadenfreude (H4a), however the impact on purchase inten-
tions was not direct (H4b), but mediated by Schadenfreude. This
supports appraisal theory's suggestion that emotions are func-
tional: they result from processing information and serve to mo-
tivate actions (Johnson & Stewart, 2005).
5.1. Research agenda
Based on our main findings, Schadenfreude appears to be a prom-
ising variable to consider in furthering our understanding of the rela-
tionships between consumers and counterfeits. Given the previous
studies in psychology and marketing that have examined Schaden-
freude with other people as referents, Schadenfreude directed toward
a brand (rather than a human) is not only highly plausible, but poten-
tially helpful in explaining consumers' intentions to buy counterfeits.
182 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183

This study has thus shown that Schadenfreude is relevant in a market- Appendix A. Baseline models for prior purchase of counterfeit
ing context, even though interpersonal relationships are not involved. products (yes/no)
In other words, people can feel this emotion with regard to an inani-
mate referent. This opens a wide range of possibilities for future
studies.
A first step would be to assess whether feelings of envy and resent-
ment (two main theoretical antecedents of Schadenfreude) toward the
original brands impacts the level of Schadenfreude fueled by the coun-
terfeit brand. Knowing that consumers buy counterfeits because they
gain benefits related to the lower price and brand-associated conspicu-
ousness (e.g., Tom et al., 1998), it would be worthwhile to measure the
weight of these benefits relative to the level of envy and resentment
evoked by the genuine brand.
Second, when complementary analyses (not presented here) were
conducted, they showed a significant relationship between Schaden-
freude and whether the cause of counterfeiting was attributed to the
original brand, the reseller or the consumer (F = 4.89; sig. = 0.00).
This means that if the original brand is seen as the main reason for the
existence of counterfeits (e.g., Juggessur & Cohen, 2009), a higher level
of Schadenfreude will result. This finding, which is in line with SIT, sup-
ports the assumption that the level of Schadenfreude will be higher if an
individual believes that the victim is responsible for their own misfor-
tune. This exploratory result, as well as the results of the post-hoc anal-
yses, merits further investigation to determine (1) who is perceived to
be the culprit of counterfeiting and how unethical the behavior of
each actor is perceived to be, and (2) the role of familiarity with genuine
brands on the relationships between attitudes toward counterfeits and
Schadenfreude.
Finally, there is a proven link between the lack of concern for ethics
and consumers' willingness to buy counterfeits (e.g., Shoham, Ruvio, &
Davidow, 2008; Chaudhry & Stumpf, 2011). For instance, Lai and
Zaichkowsky (1999) found that the respondents in their study agreed
that it was unethical for manufacturers to produce counterfeits and for
resellers to sell them, but nonetheless ethical for consumers to buy
them. Given that Schadenfreude is conceived as an undesirable social
feeling (Smith et al., 2009), it would be interesting to examine how
Schadenfreude may be tied to consumers' ethical and unethical behav-
iors. For the same reason, expressing Schadenfreude may not be socially
approved. Therefore, future research on Schadenfreude should control
for social desirability bias as well as the influence of culture such as
the relative collectivism or individualism of consumers (Chaudhry &
Stumpf, 2011; Jiang, 2014).
References
5.2. Limitations
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhland, &
J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognitions to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg:
Although this study opens up new perspectives in our understand- Springer.
ing of consumers' willingness to buy counterfeits and their feelings Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
about the genuine brand, some limitations regarding interpretation of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411–454.
Albers-Miller, N. D. (1999). Consumer misbehavior: Why people buy illicit goods. Journal
the results must not be understated. This study focused on one of the of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 273–287.
most counterfeited luxury brands, Louis Vuitton. As such, the external Ang, S., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A. C., & Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the difference: Consumer
validity of the findings is limited to this particular brand and their appli- responses towards counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 219–235.
Becerra, E. P., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2013). The influence of brand trust and brand iden-
cable scope should take this limitation into consideration. Another lim- tification on brand evangelism. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(5/6),
itation concerns the use of a relatively young sample. Studies show that 371–383.
young consumers are more likely to buy counterfeits (Cordell et al., Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: Univer-
sity of California.
1996; Tom et al., 1998; Ha & Lennon, 2006; Priporas, Kamenidou, Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. -P. (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality: Ob-
Kapoulas, & Papadopoulou, 2015). Thus it is likely that our findings serving and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52(1), 45–66
were influenced by the use of this non-representative sample. Finally, (Fall).
Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer “accomplices” in product
individual earnings may potentially affect consumers' intentions to
counterfeiting: A demand-side investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4),
buy counterfeit (Tom et al., 1998) or original products (Perez et al., 27–36.
2010), however income was not assessed in this study. Castano, R., & Perez, M. E. (2014). A matter of love: consumers' relationships with original
brands and their counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), 475–482.
Chang, T. Z., & Vowles, N. (2013). Strategies for improving data reliability for online sur-
Acknowledgments veys: A case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 4(1), 131–140.
Chaudhry, P. E., & Stumpf, S. A. (2011). Consumer complicity with counterfeit products.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 139–151.
Chiu, W., & Leng, H. K. (2016). Consumers' intention to purchase counterfeit sporting
comments and the students who contributed to collect the data through goods in Singapore and Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(1),
their brand management course. 23–36.
 F. Marticotte, M. Arcand / Journal of Business Research 77 (2017) 175–183
Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotypes and Schadenfreude: Affective and physiolog-
ical markers of pleasures at outgroup misfortunes. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 3(1), 63–71.
Commuri, S. (2009). The impact of counterfeiting on genuine-item consumers' brand re-
lationship. Journal of Marketing, 73(May), 86–98.
Cordell, V. V., Wongtada, N., & Kieschnick, R. L., Jr. (1996). Counterfeit purchase inten-
tions: Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of
Business Research, 35(1), 41–53.
Dalakas, V., & Phillips-Melancon, J. (2012). Fan identification, Schadenfreude toward
hated rivals, and the mediating effects of importance of Winning Index (IWIN).
Journal of Services Marketing, 26(1), 51–59.
de Matos, C. A., Ituassu, C. T., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Consumer attitudes toward counter-
feits: A review and extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(1), 36–47.
Doss, F., & Robinson, T. (2013). Luxury perceptions: Luxury brand vs counterfeit for young
US female consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(4), 424–439.
Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit purchases: A review and
preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12, 1–22.
Feather, N. T. (1989). Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 239–267.
Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, Schadenfreude, and sympathy:
Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 953–961.
Feather, N. T., Wenzel, M., & McKee, I. R. (2013). Integrating multiple perspectives on
schadenfreude: The role of deservingness and emotions. Motivation and Emotion,
37(3), 574–585.
Field, J. R., Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., & Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Counterfeit products: Can
consumers identify the fakes? Competition Forum, 6(2), 280–286.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
Giovannini, S., Xu, Y., & Thomas, J. (2015). Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y
consumers: Self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(1), 22–40.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. (2001). The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of
Advertising, 29(3), 30–54.
Grohs, R., Reisinger, H., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2015). Attenuation of negative sponsor-
ship effects in the context of rival sports teams' fans. European Journal of Marketing,
49(11/12), 1880–1901.
Ha, S., & Lennon, S. J. (2006). Purchase intent for fashion counterfeit products: Ethical ideol-
ogies, ethical judgments, and perceived risks. 24(4). (pp. 297–315). International Tex-
tile & Apparel Association, 297–315.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable medi-
ation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hickman, T., & Ward, J. (2007). The dark side of brand community: Inter-group
stereotyping, trash talk, and schadenfreude. Advances in Consumer Research, 34,
314–319.
Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The dark
triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark emotions,
and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211–216.
Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y., Simkin, L., & Nguyen, B. (2014). The dark side of brand attachment:
A conceptual framework of brand attachment's detrimental outcome. The Marketing
Review, 14(3), 245–264.
Jiang, L. (2014). Call for copy – The culture of counterfeit in China. Journal of Chinese
Economics, 2(2), 73–78.
Johnson, A. R., & Stewart, D. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the role of emotion in consumer
behavior. Review of Marketing Research, 1, 3–34.
Joreskog, K. G. (1969). General approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202.
Juggessur, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Is fashion promoting counterfeit brands? Brand
Management, 16(5/6), 383–394.
Kapferer, J. -N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning mar-
keting upside down. Brand Management, 16(5/6), 311–322.
Kim, J. E., Cho, Y. J., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2009). Influence of moral affect, judgment, and in-
tensity on decision making concerning counterfeit, grey-market, and imitation prod-
ucts. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 27(3), 211–226.
Kim, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2014). Shame or pride? The moderating role of self-
construal on moral judgments concerning fashion counterfeits. European Journal of
Marketing, 48(7/8), 1431–1450.
Kim, H., & Karpova, E. (2010). Consumer attitudes toward fashion counterfeits: Applica-
tion of the theory of planned behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28(2),
79–94.
Koklic, M. K. (2011). Non-deceptive counterfeiting purchase behavior: Antecedents of at-
titudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Applied Business Research, 27(2), 127–137.
183
Kramer, T., Yucel-Aybat, O., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2011). The effect of schadenfreude on choice
of conventional versus unconventional options. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 116(1), 140–147.
Kwong, K. K., Yu, W. Y. P., Leung, J. W. K., & Wang, K. (2009). Attitude toward counterfeits
and ethnic groups: Comparing Chinese and Western consumers purchasing counter-
feits. Journal of Euromarketing, 18(3), 157–168.
Lai, K. Y., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation: Do the Chinese have different
views? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16(2), 179–192.
Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Scha-
denfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(5), 932–943.
Lee, S. H., & Yoo, B. (2009). A review of the determinants of counterfeiting and piracy and
the proposition for future research. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 24(1), 1–38.
Marcketti, S. B., & Shelley, M. C. (2009). Consumer concern, knowledge and attitude to-
wards counterfeit apparel products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3),
327–337.
Marticotte, F., Arcand, M., & Baudry, D. (2016). The impact of brand evangelism on oppo-
sitional referrals towards a rival brand. Journal of Product and Brand Management,
25(6), 538–549.
Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury
brands? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
OECD/EUIPO (2016). Trade in counterfeit and pirated goods: mapping the economic impact.
Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252653-en (137 p).
Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2005). Forget the “real” thing-take the copy! An explanatory
model for the volitional purchase of counter products. Advances in Consumer
Research, 32, 568–575.
Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2008). Corporate image and product similarity: Assessing major
demand drivers for counterfeits in a multi-country study. Psychology and Marketing,
25(4), 352–381.
Perez, M. E., Castano, R., & Quintanilla, C. (2010). Constructing identity through the con-
sumption of counterfeit luxury goods. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 13(3), 219–235.
Phau, I., Prendergast, G., & Chuen, L. (2001). Profiling brand-piracy-prone consumers: An
exploratory study in Hong Kong's clothing industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 5(1), 45–55.
Phau, I., & Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: A study of the antecedents
and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 26(1), 15–27.
Phau, I., Teah, M., & 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, 17(1), 3–15.
Phillips-Melancon, J., & Dalakas, V. (2014). Brand rivalry and consumers' schadenfreude:
The case of Apple. Services Marketing Quarterly, 35(2), 173–186.
Poddar, A., Foreman, J., Banerjee, S., & Ellen, P. S. (2012). Exploring the Robin Hood effect:
Moral profiteering motives for purchasing counterfeit products. Journal of Business
Research, 65(10), 1500–1506.
Priporas, C. -V., Kamenidou, I., Kapoulas, A., & Papadopoulou, F. M. (2015). Counterfeit
purchase typologies during an economic crisis. European Business Review, 27(1),
2–16.
Radon, A. (2012, April). Counterfeit luxury goods online: An investigation of consumer
perceptions. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(2), 74–79.
Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., & Davidow, M. (2008). (Un)ethical consumer behavior: Robin
Hoods or plain hoods? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(4), 200–210.
Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the when and
why of Schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530–546.
Tang, F., Tian, V. -I., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2014). Understanding counterfeit consumption.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(1), 4–20.
Thomas, R. J. (2015). Out with the old and in with the new: A study of new kit sponsor-
ship and brand associations in the Barclays Premier League. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 24(3), 229–251.
Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., & Pilcher, J. (1998). Consumer demand for counterfeit
goods. Psychology and Marketing, 15(4), 405–421.
Turunen, L. L. M., & Laaksonen, P. (2011). Diffusing the boundaries between luxury and
counterfeits. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(6), 468–474.
Van Dijk, W. W., Goslinga, S., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2008). Impact of responsibility for a
misfortune on schadenfreude and sympathy: Further evidence. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 148(5), 631–636.
Veer, E. (2011). Staring: How Facebook facilitates the breaking of social norms. Research
in Consumer Behavior, 13, 185–198.
Viot, C., Le Roux, A., & Krémer, F. (2014). Attitude envers l'achat de contrefaçons : déter-
minants et effet sur l'intention d'achat. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 29(2),
3–33.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury
brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.
Zampetakis, L. A. (2014). The emotional dimension of the consumption of luxury counter-
feit goods: An empirical taxonomy. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(1), 21–40.