Accepted: 27 July 2022

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2521

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Bargaining our emotions: Exploring the lived experience

of purchasing luxury fashion counterfeit

Aurore C. Bardey1 | Rose Turner2 | Patrice Piccardi1

1
Burgundy School of Business, Université
Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CEREN EA 7477, Abstract
Dijon, France
The study identified contrasting experiences of purchasing and owning luxury fashion
2
University of the Arts of London, London
College of Fashion, London, UK counterfeit items: while some participants carefully considered and were ultimately
satisfied with their counterfeit purchase, others impulsively purchased and later reap-
Correspondence
Aurore C. Bardey, Burgundy School of
praised and regretted their decision. The findings underlined the importance of con-
Business, Université Bourgogne Franche- sumer perceptions of quality to luxury and luxury counterfeit fashion products. They
Comté, CEREN EA 7477, Dijon, France.
Email: aurore.bardey@bsb-education.com
showed how education about the unethical features of the counterfeit industry could
change consumer behavior.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N 2 | LI T E RA T U R E RE V I E W

Counterfeit is defined as the use of a trademark (a sign or symbol used
by a particular brand to distinguish the brand from others, such as
Nike's iconic swoosh logo) on an item, which is identical to a trade-
mark registered to another party (Bian & Moutinho, 2009). Counter-
feit occurs at all fashion market levels, from independent brands to
well-known iconic luxury brands, and has adverse economic effects
(Bian et al., 2016). The counterfeit fashion market was valued at $464
billion in 2019 (Shoaib & Maguire, 2021), and fashion sales losses
from counterfeit goods reached 26.3 billion euros worldwide in 2020
(Statista, 2021). As a result, counterfeiting represents a pervasive
issue in the luxury fashion industry.
The digital revolution has provided unprecedented access to
luxury fashion counterfeits (Bian & Veloutsou, 2017; Islam
et al., 2021; Vida, 2007), and the luxury industry has been
attempting to fight this key issue in collaboration with social
media channels; for example, through joint lawsuits against coun-
terfeiters (e.g., the Gucci-Facebook lawsuit; Luxury Daily, 2021).
In addition to digital access, technological innovations have
increased luxury fashion counterfeit access and mis-spelling
(Hall, 2020). More than ever, developing knowledge of the con-
sumer behavior involved in luxury fashion counterfeit purchasing
is needed to equip the luxury sector with the knowledge needed
to more effectively address this issue. Within this context, the
present research aims to tackle an unexplored aspect of counter-
feit consumer behavior: the lived and emotional experience of
purchasing luxury fashion counterfeit.
Several factors involved in prompting an individual to make a counter-
feit luxury purchase have been documented in the literature. Eisend
and Schuchert-Güler (2006) identified four main factors involved in
counterfeit purchasing: (1) person (demographic and psychographic
characteristics), (2) product (price, product attributes, scarcity);
(3) social and cultural context; (4) and situation (purchase situation,
consumer's mood). Thaichon and Quach (2016) refined and developed
this initial classification by proposing a set of external and internal
motives for buying counterfeit. The authors articulated seven internal
motives: (1) sense of adventure (risk and adventure-seeking); (2) fash-
ion/novelty seeker (need to be on-trend or seek fashion novelty);
(3) sense of morality; (4) perception of inequality (purchasing counter-
feit to fight against branding and inequality in society); (5) perception
of the actual product; (6) quality acceptance; (7) purchasing experi-
ence; and nine external motives: (1) social acceptance (approval of
one's action or behavior within the social group); (2) peer influence;
(3) sense of belonging/desired image (when a consumer would like to
be seen as part of a group, trend, fashion or social class); (4) perceived
risks associated with purchase (sense of safety during the purchase);
(5) perceived risks related to usage (sense of embarrassment if others
identify the counterfeit nature of the item); (6) affordability of the
product; (7) accessibility (degree of freedom and access from the
consumer); (8) degree of justice; and (9) access via social networking
sites. These factors have received support from several studies
(Bian et al., 2015; Bian et al., 2016; Bian & Moutinho, 2009; Bian &
Moutinho, 2011; Furnham & Valgeirsson, 2007; Jiang & Cova, 2012;

Strategic Change. 2022;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
2 BARDEY ET AL.
Kim et al., 2012; Phau & Teah, 2009; Poddar et al., 2012; Tang
et al., 2014; Wilcox et al., 2009).
While most counterfeit-related research had focused on better
understanding pre-purchase factors, the last decade has seen an
increasing interest in understanding the post-purchase factors
involved in counterfeit purchases. Recent study has explained how
consumers attempt to reduce the unfavorable consequences of
the counterfeit purchase by (1) twisting, that is, reframing, the
actual scenario of purchasing; (2) hiding the counterfeit product or
not using it in front of “experts” (fashion experts and/or wealthy
people); (3) buying “limited edition” or “latest collection” counter-
feit in order to get a recognizable item; (4) buying an as-similar-as-
possible counterfeit version of a genuine product (Agarwal &
Panwar, 2016; Amaral & Loken, 2016; Bian et al., 2016; Gistri
et al., 2009; Pueschel et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2014). Li et al.
(2020) suggested that consumers use these strategies in order to
construct and maintain their social identity (“part of an individual's
self-concept which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her
membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value
and emotional significance attached to that membership”;
Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). This finding is consistent with Penz and Stot-
tinger (2005) who suggested that social identity can play a role in
purchasing luxury counterfeits. The impact of social identity in
status-oriented consumption, along with value for money, is a criti-
cal factor in luxury counterfeit consumerism (Ang et al., 2001;
Furnham & Valgeirsson, 2007). For example, consumers might
spend an affordable amount to purchase a counterfeit lookalike of
an authentic trending luxury product, generating a sense of
belonging to an affluent or high-status group (Harvey &
Walls, 2003; Staake & Fleisch, 2008; Thaichon & Quach, 2016;
Wilcox et al., 2009).
Self-concept and fashion are known to be intertwined. Individ-
uals' self-concepts have been found to be central to fashion consump-
tion, with clothing practice functioning as a mechanism for self-
expression and self-perception (Entwistle, 2000; Masuch & Hefferon,
2012; Moody et al., 2010; Nessim & Bardey, 2022). Materialistic pos-
session plays a key role in self-identity construction and can be
viewed as an extension of the self (Belk, 1988). This phenomenon is
reflected in purchasing behaviors: consumers with high self-esteem
have been shown to be more inclined to purchase authentic brands
that convey higher-status self-identity (Yoo & Lee, 2009) and to have
a greater tendency to buy items with a logo (Wilcox et al., 2009). Fur-
thermore, purchasing counterfeit products can increase aspirational
consumers' willingness to pay for their genuine counterparts
(i.e., consumers will initially buy a counterfeit item and then buy the
actual product when they have enough money) as well as helping to
boost their self-image (Bekir et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2012). Gino
et al. (2010) found a “counterfeit self” effect in which wearing coun-
terfeit items was found to lead to more cheating behaviors. This
research inquiry represents the only study to assess the impact of
counterfeit on the self to date and highlights an interesting avenue for
future research.
Emotions and fashion are also known to be intertwined
(Masuch & Hefferon, 2014; Moody et al., 2010; Smith & Yates, 2018),
particularly in that purchasing can lead to a specific pattern of emo-
tions (based on dimensions of hostility, surprise and interest;
Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). More recently, research has examined
purchase-related emotions in the context of counterfeit purchasing,
with several studies indicating feelings of guilt, anger and shame after
having purchased counterfeit (Elsantil & Hamza, 2019; Kapferer &
Valette-Florence, 2022; Liao et al., 2010; Sharma & Chan, 2016; Viot
et al., 2014). Explanations for these negative emotions include an
unpleasant post-counterfeit-purchase experience (e.g., inferior quality
of the item or regret), or cognitive dissonance arising from the con-
sumer's ethical standards in contrast to the perceived unethical
dimensions in purchasing counterfeit (Baumeister et al., 1994;
Freedman et al., 1967; Gregory-Smith et al., 2013).
Interestingly, Martinez and Jaeger (2016) showed that emotions
are not always negative when purchasing counterfeit. Indeed, while
high-moral awareness participants indicated feelings of guilt, low
moral awareness participants reported emotions of gratitude. More-
over, Chaudhry and Stumpf (2011) showed that positive hedonic
emotions can be found in consumers willing to purchase counterfeit
movies or pharmaceuticals.
Zampetakis (2014) quantified luxury counterfeit purchases' posi-
tive and negative emotions. In the study, participants were asked to
think carefully about their most recent luxury counterfeit purchase
(within the last 6 months) and then to indicate their emotions con-
cerning their counterfeit purchase via a Likert scale. Where emotions
were present, participants experienced both positive and negative
feelings, with the highest average (albeit moderate) scores in happi-
ness and pride (2.14 and 2.44 out of 5, respectively), and distress, guilt
and shame (2.21, 2.43 and 2.48 out of 5, respectively). Scores of
1 (“very slightly or not at all”) for a given emotion taken to indicate an
emotion was not felt, and 72.2% of participants reported not having
felt fear, 61.9% anger, 43.3% distress, 35.9% guilt, 42.3% shame,
13.8% interest, 25.7% happiness, and 59.6% pride. As a consequence,
Zampetakis (2014) showed that consumers could feel both negative
and positive emotions when purchasing counterfeit, and several
researchers (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006; Kim et al., 2009;
Zampetakis, 2014) have highlighted the importance of exploring the
emotional aspects of purchasing counterfeit items.
Over the last decade, promising research exploring the impact of
counterfeit on self-perception and emotions has begun to emerge,
though gaps remain to be addressed. On the one hand, Gino et al.
(2010) showed the impact of wearing counterfeit on the self, but the
impact of counterfeit purchases on self-identity remains unclear. On
the other hand, Zampetakis (2014) quantified emotions related to
counterfeit purchasing. However, the study description highlighted
the unethical dimensions of counterfeit (described as “illegal, low-
priced and often lower quality” as well as “other names such as rep-
licas, imitation, bogus, fakes, copy, or knock-off”). It may have
impacted participants' recollections of their emotions. In light of previ-
ous findings and remaining gaps in the literature, we aimed to explore
BARDEY ET AL. 3

T A B L E 1 Participant demographic characteristics, favorite brands, fashion involvement questionnaire scores (product development
involvement, purchase decision involvement, advertising involvement and consumption involvement; O'Cass, 2000)

Occupational Monthly spend

Pseudo Age Gender status on fashion (€) Favorite brands Counterfeit items purchased (price in €)
Anna 25 Female Employed 100 M&S Chanel small purse (30€)
Chanel
Jimmy Choo
Betty 23 Female Student 60–500 Zadig & Voltaire Louis Vuitton & Hermes bags, Burberry scarfs (n.k.)
Mango
Naf Naf
Elisa 34 Female Student 60 Beyond Retro Chanel cardigan (10€)
Chanel
Oxfam
James 21 Male Student 50–100 CK CK tee-shirt and boxers (100€ in total) & Ralf Lauren wallet
Hollister (20€)
Desigual
Jane 21 Female Student 60 Kate Spade Christian Dior saddlebag (30€)
Forever 21
Shein
Mary 22 Female Employed 50 SMR Clothes & Jewelry (n.k.)
The Kooples
Zara
Max 20 Male Student 200–250 Raf Simons Clothes from Dior, Off-White, Chanel, Balenciaga (20–60€ per
Kusikohc item)
Ader Error
Rachel 21 Female Employed 350 P. Mills Stella McCartney bag (40€)
Etro
A. McQueen
Sarah 24 Female Student 500 Miumiu Chanel and Louis Vuitton Jewelry (n.k.)
Chanel
Dior
Victoria 25 Female Student 150 Gina Tricot Clothes and bag (10–50€ per item)
Ralph Lauren
Lacoste

Abbreviation: n.k., not known.

the lived experience of purchasing luxury counterfeit by investigating 50 to 500€ per month on fashion items and were able to name at least
the impact on consumers' self-identity and post-purchase emotions. one favorite luxury brand, indicating an interest in authentic luxury
fashion. The study was granted ethics approval at the London College
of Fashion (UK) and adhered to the British Psychological Society's
3 | METHODS guidelines for treating human participants, and pseudonyms were
used to ensure anonymity.
3.1 | Participants

Ten participants, two men and eight women, aged between 20 and
34 (Table 1) were recruited using opportunity and snowball sampling.
This sample size was appropriate for our qualitative methodology and
based on the sample's homogeneity (Boddy, 2016; Marshall
et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2009), and in line with previous qualitative
research in emotion and fashion (Carr & Mercer, 2017; Fleetwood-
Smith et al., 2019; Sadkowska et al., 2015; Smith & Yates, 2018;
Townsend & Sadkowska, 2017). Three participants were early-career
employees, and seven were students living in France or England, who
had knowingly purchased at least one counterfeit luxury fashion prod-
uct in the past 2 years. Participants reported spending an average of
3.2 | Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants were asked to state
their favorite brands and list their counterfeit purchases over the
past 2 years. Then, participants took part in a 1:1 semi-structured
interview lasting approximately 40 min. We aimed to understand
participants' experiences of non-deceptive practice (i.e., knowingly
purchasing counterfeits; Grossman & Shapiro, 1988) to assess the
motivations and processes involved (in line with Bian &
Moutinho, 2011). Open-ended questions such as “Can you tell me
about the emotions you felt when purchasing/wearing the
4 BARDEY ET AL.
counterfeit item?,” were used to elicit rich, exploratory data (Smith
et al., 2009), and questions were constructed to probe the
emotions involved in purchasing counterfeit and genuine luxury
fashion product(s), participants' social identity and their extended
self-perception. Participants were verbally debriefed following the
interview.
3.3 | Data analysis
Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA; a hermeneutic approach
that aims to explore “how people make sense of their major life
experiences,” Smith et al., 2009, p. 1, in this context, participants'
emotions and thoughts about purchasing and wearing counterfeit lux-
ury items) was used to analyze the interview data due to its emphasis
on complex and subjective experience (as opposed to quantifying the
occurrence of patterns), following the procedure outlined by Smith
et al. (2009) and Willig (2013). First, the interviews were transcribed,
and each transcript was read several times in order to identify rele-
vant and descriptive words and phrases. Next, systematic and critical
reading of the transcripts identified emergent themes, which were
grouped, developed and summarized, and then consolidated across
the transcripts to interpret shared themes.
4 | RESULTS
The main outcomes of our data analysis are presented in Figure 1. We
found that most participants initially experienced positive emotions,
followed either by negative emotions, continued positive emotions or
a return to neutral emotions. Participants reflected on how counter-
feit or luxury items reflected their self-identity.
4.1 | Initial positive emotion of finding a bargain
While Rachel, Victoria, James and Max bought their counterfeit items
at a local market, the other six participants purchased theirs on the
internet (retail websites or social media channels). Victoria, Max and
Rachel bought their counterfeit items as part of a social event, such as
going to the local market with family or mother-daughter shopping,
whereas James went shopping on his own. Despite these differences
in the purchase environment, most participants expressed initial posi-
tive emotions during the moment of purchase and immediately after
the purchase:
“When I received it, I was happy with the purchase, I
was happy with the quality. (…) When I opened the
box, I felt very happy, it was a bargain pur-
chase.” (Anna)
These initial positive feelings translated into a high level of usage:
“Right after the purchase, I was using it very often. I
got compliments on it. The bag fitted everything in, it
was multipurpose.” (Rachel)
The positive emotional responses to finding a bargain were imme-
diate and strong enough that they felt like a “serotonin release” (Jane).
However, two participants, Mary and Sarah, experienced a lack of
emotions in response to purchasing and then using counterfeit items.
The participants used everyday metaphors such as “stuff,” “things,”
and “object,” highlighting the insignificance of the item purchased.
Both participants described purchasing their items to complete stylish
clothes: for them, the clothing was important, but the accessories
were not. The aim was, therefore, to purchase appropriate accessories
to complement an outfit without spending a high price.
4.2 | Post-purchase negative emotions
Participants showed two different post-purchase emotions follow-
ing the initial peak in positive emotions. For some participants, the
initial positive emotions were followed by negative emotions. Four
out of the 10 participants (Anna, Rachel, Elisa and James) reported
that negative emotions gradually outweighed the positive until
they only felt negative emotions toward their counterfeit pur-
chase. “Disappointment,” “guilt,” and “upset” were linked with the
item's diminishing superficial quality, which, they felt, made it
appear counterfeit rather than authentic.
“In the end, quality was definitely an issue. I kept it for
a little while but didn't wear a lot. The shape wasn't
very good. It was a size too big. The colour was not
nice.” (Elisa)
“I am so disappointed by the quality of the bag, which
is now falling apart. The quality of this bad was good
for a year, but then it started to look a bit tatty. I don't
use it anymore.” (Rachel)
The inferior quality of the counterfeit item generated some early
negative emotions and ultimately, in some cases, rejection of the item.
Furthermore, subsequent negative associations emerged, experienced
as “guilt” and “shame.” These emotions were connected to the
broader (non-item-specific) working conditions of the counterfeit
industry:
“But to be honest, soon after buying this purse, I've
decided not to purchase a counterfeit item anymore
because it makes me feel guilty because of how
they've been made. The more I thought about it, the
more I thought about what can happen in other coun-
tries that produce counterfeit, that does make me feel
guilty.” (Anna)
BARDEY ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Thematic analysis map Impulsive purchase
Purchase Positive feelings
counterfeit “Bargain”
Deliberate purchase
“By buying counterfeit, I'm feeding the wrong side of
poverty. I feel like it's wrong to support unsafe work
labour. I feel like I'm supporting illegal work by pur-
chasing counterfeit. (…) I felt guilty due to the impact
of counterfeit, unsafe supply chain, child labour, etc.”
(Rachel)
The negative emotions experienced by participants were associ-
ated with an understanding of sustainable fashion and ethics in the
fashion industry, including knowledge about counterfeit supply chains,
production and materials. The more participants learned about sus-
tainable fashion and the counterfeit industry, the more they regretted
their purchase. Education in sustainability and counterfeit processes
was the key source of this regret:
“I've started asking myself questions when I was at uni-
versity studying sustainability. The things I learned at
university had more of an impact on me feeling guilty
rather than the quality declining. (…) My attitude
towards counterfeit changed completely with the
knowledge I gained.” (Anna)
Although ethical concerns may have been present at the point of
purchase, the unease was initially superseded by positive emotions
arising from the acquisition of a bargain. Subsequently, feelings of
remorse led to decisions to behave differently in future; namely, by
purchasing better quality genuine fashion items. Rachel and James
highlighted how this behavior change led to more sustaining positive
and validating emotions:
“Now I hate the fact that I bought it. By then, I was
impatient and greedy; but with a bit more patience,
you can save money and buy the real thing. Now that I
earn money, I'd rather work hard, buy myself the real
thing and be proud of it.” (Rachel)
5
Negative feelings Faking the
- Guilt - self
Inferior quality
OR
Positive feelings Embracing the
- Enjoyment - self
Excellent quality
“Now, when I wear my authentic C* tee-shirts and
underwear, I feel so good with myself.” (James)
All participants who purchased counterfeit experienced negative
emotions overwhelming the initial positive emotions soon after the
purchase. This emotion was associated with the disintegration of the
item's quality over time, alongside knowledge of unethical aspects of
the counterfeit market. Ultimately, these negative feelings were suffi-
cient to instigate changes in behavior in favor of purchasing more
expensive authentic products, which would engender sustained, posi-
tive emotions.
4.3 | Post-purchase positive emotions
While Rachel, Anna, Elisa and James, described the development of
negative emotions in arising from their counterfeit purchases, two
participants (Victoria and Max) did not share this emotional
experience:
“I was happy about my purchase. For me, it was a good
deal. I'm not ashamed to say that I buy counterfeit
because I buy genuine brands like Supreme or what-
ever. I'm not ashamed and I have no problem with that.
For me, the downside is finding a good quality, inex-
pensive item.” (Victoria)
Victoria and Max carefully chose their counterfeit items; their
purchases took time and were not impulsive. Both participants
explained that their counterfeit items remain high quality, and both
continue to wear items purchased up to 5 years ago. The differences
in participants' emotional responses appear to be related to percep-
tions of item quality. While the four participants who expressed nega-
tive emotions did not pay attention to the item's quality at the point
of purchase, Victoria and Max felt that they had sufficient expertise
6 BARDEY ET AL.
to detect quality and “go-to [online] addresses” wherein to locate them.
Victoria explained, “I know my way around. I know what I'm buying,”
and both Victoria and Max described the excellent quality, style, and
cut of the counterfeit items:
The quality is amazing. I'm still wearing items bought
three years ago. No one even noticed my items were
counterfeit. Some of the items are just perfect. Like my
counterfeit trousers, I tried to find the same cut and
style in fashion stores, but I couldn't find it. The trou-
sers are just perfect.
Participants who deliberately and carefully purchased luxury fash-
ion counterfeit did not express any post-purchase negative emotions.
On the contrary, the participants remained extremely content with
their purchase as the counterfeit items' quality did not diminish
over time.
An appreciation of ethical issues factored not only in feelings of
regret post-purchase but also in Victoria and Max's positive appraisals.
Here, however, the ethics of the luxury, rather than counterfeit, mar-
ket was meaningful; namely, unfair and inappropriate high prices for
poor-quality luxury items. Max felt manipulated by expensive, genuine
brands:
“Some (genuine) brands are not worth the money. The
quality is not that good. They manipulate us. I don't
find it ethically right. I know what the product really
costs, and the brands increased the price so much, it's
too much. Doubling the price from factory to selling is
not fair, and not worth it.” (Max)
Following the initial, in-the-moment positive response, two par-
ticipants, Jane and Betty, felt neither particularly positive nor particu-
larly negative about their counterfeit purchases. Again, this sentiment
was related to the item's quality: the participants lost interest in their
counterfeit items as quality decreased. A willingness to find good-
quality counterfeit for a reasonable price can be attributed to the par-
ticipants' lack the expertise or “go-to addresses” of Max and Victoria.
Development of expertise might lead to more sustaining positive
emotions in the future.
4.4 | Styling one's self with counterfeit
The participants who expressed negative emotions about purchas-
ing counterfeits explained that buying counterfeits did not repre-
sent the person they were. For these participants, the counterfeit
purchase became linked to their sense of self. As expressed by
Elisa below, there was a discrepancy between who they are and
what they felt they represented while wearing counterfeit. There
were feelings of dissonance between their social self and their
inner self as though they were faking their actual self while wear-
ing counterfeit:
“I think I have a lot of dissonance about it because it's
not usual for me. And I think this is where all the nega-
tivity comes from. What does it say about me when I
wear something that is fake and not real? I think it
doesn't reflect nicely on myself.” (Elisa)
Participants worried that the counterfeit could negatively affect how
others would perceive them; as Anna explained: “I'm scared that some-
one will notice that it's counterfeit and they will think I'm a horrible per-
son … which I'm not.”
These participants were attracted to the authenticity of genuine
luxury brands as luxury items were felt to reflect better who they are:
“The negative feeling went from the lack of authenticity. I don't really
want to wear something fake. And I think this is why I didn't want to
wear that often.” (Elisa).
The participants who expressed positive emotions about purchas-
ing counterfeit also valued finding products that suited their style and
identity. However, for them, this outcome could be achieved by pur-
chasing counterfeit items. In this way, counterfeit functioned to
enable them to embrace their fashion identity.
“Buying things that I couldn't have been able to pur-
chase as genuine items allowed me to really express
myself with my style, it allowed me to express who I
am.” (Max)
“My fashion style represents my identity. For example,
the perfect trousers I mentioned, they are like my
‘style signature’, my friends talked about it, they repre-
sent my identity.” (Max)
Max and Victoria understood that purchasing counterfeit can be
illegal but reasoned that the high prices of some luxury products justi-
fied this course of action. Rather than simply pitting counterfeit
against authentic products, the participants illustrated multiple dimen-
sions through which an item can be appraised, such as quality and
style. Therefore, their emotional associations were not based on
whether or not the product was counterfeit.
“Whether I'm wearing real brands or a fake item, I feel
the same. There is no difference.” (Victoria)
“The style is what defined the item, which is why I
didn't say to my friends it was counterfeit when I gave
them the counterfeit items. Counterfeit is just one
aspect of the items. Quality and style are more impor-
tant when considering these items.” (Max)
Participants who experienced negative post-purchase emotions
highlighted dissonance between the counterfeit items and their sense
of self, and this emotional state led to a feeling of faking the self. In
contrast, participants who experienced sustained positive post-
purchase emotions identified dimensions of uniqueness and quality
BARDEY ET AL.
that enabled them to express their sense of style and self-using coun-
terfeit items.
5 | DISCUSSION
The present research aimed to investigate the impact of purchasing
luxury fashion counterfeits on consumers' post-purchase emotions
and self-concept. The results showed that participants initially felt
positive about attaining a financial bargain when purchasing their
counterfeit luxury items (and product affordability has been identified
as an internal motive for purchasing counterfeit; Thaichon &
Quach, 2016). Following the initial positive response, participants'
experiences diverged along three dimensions.
First, participants who impulsively purchased a counterfeit item
soon developed negative emotions of regret and guilt, consistent with
previous research (Elsantil & Hamza, 2019; Liao et al., 2010;
Sharma & Chan, 2016; Viot et al., 2014). These participants had not
paid attention to the item quality when purchasing and were more
focused on an iconic style or brand identity. Subsequently, the dimin-
ishing quality of the items impacted their post-purchase emotions,
leading to feelings associated with regret. Negative perceptions of the
items were compounded by knowledge of the ethical implications of
purchasing counterfeits. On the other hand, participants who carefully
selected their counterfeit products, considering both style and quality,
did not develop negative associations with their purchases. Instead,
the participants were satisfied with the quality and prices of their
items. Finally, a minority of participants lost interest in their items as
item-quality was seen to diminish. These participants did not experi-
ence negative feelings but described an interest in seeking out quality
items at reasonable prices. An explanation for this could be a lack of
expertise to find good quality items at the desired price.
The subsequent emotions toward purchasing counterfeit seemed
to be dependent on whether the purchase was experienced as
impulsive—leading to reappraisal and resulting in negative emotions
about the purchase—or carefully considered. Most importantly, the
present study highlighted that item quality is the key factor involved
in post-purchase emotions and satisfaction in luxury fashion counter-
feit purchases.
In addition to quality, item accessibility seems to be an important
factor in purchasing counterfeit, which impacts consumers' emotions
and satisfaction post-purchase. Thaichon and Quach (2016) identified
“accessibility” (the freedom and access of the consumer) as one of the
external motives for purchasing counterfeit. The present study sup-
ported this finding, highlighting how the inaccessibility of genuine lux-
ury products (in terms of location or cost) can lead to purchasing
counterfeits instead. For the participants who regretted their pur-
chases, the accessibility of counterfeits led to an impulsive purchase
decision. In contrast, the participants who were satisfied with their
counterfeits made their purchases based on their style preferences
which were not met at a suitable price in the luxury market.
In line with Thaichon and Quach's (2016) model, most participants
expressed the importance of ethics in purchasing counterfeits. The
7
participants who regretted their purchases discussed ethical issues in
the counterfeit industry (including working conditions and sustainabil-
ity issues). These factors were considered significant enough to war-
rant participants to assert that they would no longer purchase
counterfeits; in other words, it changed their behavior. In contrast,
the participants who experienced no regret talked about the ethics of
the luxury industry in which high prices were considered not to reflect
quality. Their purchases were justified as good quality counterfeits
were likely to last longer (and therefore be more sustainable) than
their overpriced luxury counterparts.
These results are coherent with Martinez and Jaeger (2016)
who found that high-moral awareness participants experienced
emotions of guilt while low moral awareness participants reported
emotions of gratitude. In our study, some participants' moral
awareness was focused on the ethics of the counterfeit market,
while other participants' moral awareness was focused on the
ethics of the luxury industry. While all participants intended to buy
an as-similar-as-possible counterfeit version of a genuine product,
the participants did not attempt to reduce the unfavorable conse-
quences of the counterfeit purchase by reframing the purchasing
scenario, hiding the counterfeit product, not using it in front of
“experts,” or buying “limited editions” to get a recognizable item
(Agarwal & Panwar, 2016; Amaral & Loken, 2016; Bian et al., 2016;
Gistri et al., 2009; Pueschel et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2014). Instead,
our results revealed two contrasting approaches: either reasoning
that counterfeit purchasing was ethical (because high-priced low-
quality luxury products are unethical) or, after regretting their pur-
chase, committing to no longer purchase counterfeits due to gain-
ing new knowledge about sustainable fashion and the counterfeit
industry.
The participants who experienced post-purchase dissatisfac-
tion and satisfaction differed in how they felt the counterfeits
expressed their identities. Whereas the former was concerned that
the “fake” items would generate negative connotations about
themselves, the latter viewed the counterfeits as supportive and
expressive of their unique styles. For all participants, therefore,
the counterfeits were experienced as expressive, although only the
participants who had deliberated over their purchases perceived
the purchases as reflective of their true selves. This outcome aligns
with previous studies which have indicated that clothing practices
represent self-expression mechanisms and convey one's inner self
and self-perception (Entwistle, 2000; Masuch & Hefferon, 2012;
Moody et al., 2010; Nessim & Bardey, 2022). Our findings contrib-
ute to this literature by exploring the impact of purchasing coun-
terfeit on participants' self-perception. While participants
dissatisfied with the quality of their items and the ethical problems
of the counterfeit market felt uncomfortable wearing them as they
did not represent their genuine self, those who were satisfied with
their items used the unique style of the counterfeit as a mecha-
nism for expressing their own fashion identity. This outcome ech-
oes Tassel et al.'s (2022) finding that wearing unsustainable
clothing led to negative emotions while wearing sustainable dress
led to positive emotions.
8 BARDEY ET AL.
6 | CONCLUSIONS, MARKETING
I M P L I C A T I O N S , A N D F U T U R E R E S EA R C H
This study identified contrasting experiences of purchasing and own-
ing luxury fashion counterfeit items. While some participants carefully
considered the purchasing process and were ultimately satisfied with
their counterfeit purchase, others impulsively purchased and later
reappraised and regretted their decision. These emotional responses
were linked to the relationship between the purchasers' self-concept
and their ownership of counterfeit. Participants chose either to stop
purchasing luxury counterfeit because the fake items did not feel rep-
resentative of their true selves, or they chose to carry on purchasing
luxury counterfeit because these items fitted with their defined fash-
ion style thus representing who they are. Knowledge of sustainability
and the ethics of counterfeit fashion was central to the negative
appraisal of counterfeit purchases.
In contrast, ethical issues in the luxury industry supported posi-
tive perceptions of purchasing a luxury counterfeit. Perceptions of
product quality and accessibility contributed to positive and nega-
tive appraisals of counterfeit items. The study highlighted the
importance of consumer perceptions of quality to luxury and luxury
counterfeit fashion products and indicated that education about
the unethical features of the counterfeit industry could change
consumer behavior.
Digital-technological innovation and counterfeit have been found
to be interlinked. On the one hand, digital and technology innovation
has helped fight against counterfeit with tools such as holograms,
luminescent topcoats, blockchain technologies, and the creation of
start-ups like Ennoventure, which allows consumers to check whether
their luxury product is genuine or not directly (Singh, 2021;
Slater, 2020). On the other hand, the counterfeit market takes advan-
tage of digital and technological innovation to ease accessibility,
increase image capture and item reproduction speed and maintain the
“quality” of counterfeit items (Meraviglia, 2016; National Research
Council, 2007). While the continued development of digital and tech-
nological barriers is required to combat counterfeiting, the present
study highlighted new approaches to addressing the issue. Our results
showed that educating consumers on the unethical aspects of the
counterfeit market may convince consumers to stop buying counter-
feit and that this approach may be particularly effective with partici-
pants already experiencing dissatisfaction with their previous
counterfeit purchases. High quality, uniqueness, rarity, and heritage
are some traditional luxury codes (Dubois et al., 2001; Heine, 2012;
Keller, 2009) that may attract even more consumers to the genuine
luxury market. Interestingly, however, the same luxury traditional
codes, that is, uniqueness, rarity, and thus lack of accessibility, may
convince the consumers satisfied with previous counterfeits to find
an as-similar-as possible quality item for a lower price via the counter-
feit market. For these consumers, transparency about price policy for
genuine luxury items may support luxury purchasing, although this
openness does contradict traditional luxury codes (Dubois
et al., 2001; Heine, 2012; Keller, 2009).
While the present study underlines interesting outcomes and routes
for marketing implications, future research would help to understand lux-
ury counterfeit consumer behavior further. First, our participants were all
from Western countries, and a future study could replicate our study
with Eastern cultures where the counterfeit market represents a differ-
ent stage of development. Second, we need to explore the generalizabil-
ity of our findings by quantifying the contrasting experiences of
purchasing and owning luxury fashion counterfeits and exploring the
psychological factors that may underpin dichotomic post-purchase emo-
tions. Finally, future research may shed light on the potential benefits of
educating consumers about ethical dimensions concerning the luxury
fashion counterfeit market.
RE FE RE NCE S
Agarwal, S., & Panwar, S. (2016). Consumer orientation towards counter-
feit fashion products: A qualitative analysis. IUP Journal of Brand Man-
agement, 13(3), 55–74.
Amaral, N. B., & Loken, B. (2016). Viewing usage of counterfeit luxury
goods: Social identity and social hierarchy effects on dilution and
enhancement of genuine luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 26(4), 483–495.
Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A., & Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the differ-
ence: Consumer responses towards counterfeits. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(3), 219–235.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Bekir, I., El Harbi, S. & Grolleau, G. (2013). How a luxury monopolist might
benefit from the aspirational utility effect of counterfeiting? European
Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 169–182.
Bian, X., Haque, S., & Smith, A. (2015). Social power, product conspicuous-
ness, and the demand for luxury brand counterfeit products. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 37–54.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counter-
feit purchase consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368–378.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). Counterfeits and branded products:
Effects of counterfeit ownership. Journal of Product & Brand Manage-
ment, 20(5), 379–393.
Bian, X., Wang, K. Y., Smith, A., & Yannopoulou, N. (2016). New insights
into unethical counterfeit consumption. Journal of Business Research,
69(10), 4249–4258.
Bian, X., & Veloutsou, C. (2017). Consumers' attitudes regarding non-
deceptive counterfeit brands in the UK and China. In Advances in Chi-
nese brand management (pp. 331–350). Palgrave Macmillan.
Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Mar-
ket Research: An International Journal., 19(4), 426–443.
Carr, D. J., & Mercer, J. (2017). Young people's experiences of fashion
modelling: An exploratory phenomenological study. International Jour-
nal of Fashion Studies, 4(1), 51–68.
Chaudhry, P. E., & Stumpf, S. A. (2011). Consumer complicity with coun-
terfeit products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 139–151.
Dubois, B., Laurent, G., & Czellar, S. (2001). Consumer rapport to luxury:
Analysing complex and ambivalent attitudes (Consumer research work-
ing paper no. 736). HEC.
Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit pur-
chases: A review and preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review,
12, 1–25.
Elsantil, Y., & Hamza, E. A. (2019). The impact of self-conscious emotions
on willingness to pay for sustainable products. Humanities & Social Sci-
ences Reviews, 7(2), 77–90.
BARDEY ET AL.
Entwistle, J. (2000). Fashion and the fleshy body: Dress as embodied prac-
tice. Fashion theory, 4(3), 323–347.
Fleetwood-Smith, R., Hefferon, K., & Mair, C. (2019). ‘It's like … it's me’:
Exploring the lived experience of clothing attachment during wear.
International Journal of Fashion Studies, 6(1), 41–62.
Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A., & Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without
pressure: The effect of guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 7(2), 117–124.
Furnham, A., & Valgeirsson, H. (2007). The effect of life values and materi-
alism on buying counterfeit products. The Journal of Socio-Economics,
36(5), 677–685.
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The decep-
tive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712–720.
Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V., & Grappi, S. (2009). Consump-
tion practices of counterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context. Journal
of Brand Management, 16(5), 364–374.
Gregory-Smith, D., Smith, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2013). Emotions and disso-
nance in ‘ethical’ consumption choices. Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 29(11–12), 1201–1223.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status
goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.
Hall, C. (2020). The pandemic has created a ‘perfect storm’ for counterfeits.
Just ask Louis Vuitton. BoF Business of Fashion.
Harvey, P. J., & Walls, W. D. (2003). Laboratory markets in counterfeit
goods: Hong Kong versus Las Vegas. Applied Economics Letters, 10(14),
883–887.
Heine, K. (2012). The concept of luxury brands. Bartek Goldmann & Kate
Vredenburgh.
Islam, T., Pitafi, A. H., Akhtar, N., & Xiaobei, L. (2021). Determinants of pur-
chase luxury counterfeit products in social commerce: The mediating
role of compulsive internet use. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 62, 102596.
Jiang, L., & Cova, V. (2012). Love for luxury, preference for counterfeits—A
qualitative study in counterfeit luxury consumption in China. Interna-
tional Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(6), 1–9.
Kapferer, J. N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2022). The myth of the universal
millennial: comparing millennials' perceptions of luxury across six
countries. International Marketing Review, 39(2), 149–165.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Managing the growth tradeoff: Challenges and oppor-
tunities in luxury branding. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5),
290–301.
Kim, J. E., Cho, H. J., & Johnson, K. K. (2009). Influence of moral affect,
judgment, and intensity on decision making concerning counterfeit,
gray-market, and imitation products. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 27(3), 211–226.
Kim, J., Kim, J. E., & Park, J. (2012). Effects of cognitive resource availabil-
ity on consumer decisions involving counterfeit products: The role of
perceived justification. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 869–881.
Li, J., Ghaffari, M., & Su, L. (2020). Counterfeit luxury consumption strate-
gies in a collectivistic culture: The case of China. Journal of Brand Man-
agement, 27(5), 546–560.
Liao, C., Lin, H. N., & Liu, Y. P. (2010). Predicting the use of pirated software: A
contingency model integrating perceived risk with the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 237–252.
Luxury Daily. (2021, 27 April). Gucci, Facebook file joint lawsuit against
alleged counterfeiter.
Martinez, L. F., & Jaeger, D. S. (2016). Ethical decision making in counter-
feit purchase situations: The influence of moral awareness and moral
emotions on moral judgment and purchase intentions. Journal of Con-
sumer Marketing, 33(3), 213–223.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sam-
ple size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative
interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
54(1), 11–22.
9
Masuch, C. S., & Hefferon, K. (2014). Understanding the links between
positive psychology and fashion: A grounded theory analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Fashion Studies, 1(2), 227–246.
Meraviglia, L. (2016). Technology and counterfeiting: Friends or foes? Global
Fashion Conference.
Moody, W., Kinderman, P., & Sinha, P. (2010). An exploratory study: Rela-
tionships between trying on clothing, mood, emotion, personality and
clothing preference. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, 14(1), 161–179.
National Research Council. (2007). A path to the next generation of US
banknotes: Keeping them real. National Academies Press.
Nessim, Y., & Bardey, A. (2022). The rise of female empowerment in Egypt:
The fashion psychology behind their attire & armour. Fashion marketing in
emerging economies—Strategies, tools, and insights for fashion brands.
Palgrave Macmillan.
O'Cass, A. (2000). An assessment of consumers product, purchase deci-
sion, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing.
Journal of economic psychology, 21(5), 545–576.
Penz, E., & Stottinger, B. (2005). Forget the Areal@ thingbtake the copy! An
explanatory model for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products.
ACR North American Advances.
Phau, I., & Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: A study of
antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury
brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), 15–27.
Poddar, A., Foreman, J., Banerjee, S. 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.
Pueschel, J., Chamaret, C., & Parguel, B. (2017). Coping with copies: The
influence of risk perceptions in luxury counterfeit consumption in
GCC countries. Journal of Business Research, 77, 184–194.
Romani, S., Gistri, G., & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal
of luxury brands. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 807–824.
Sadkowska, A., Wilde, D., & Fisher, T. (2015). Third age men's experience
of fashion and clothing: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Age, Culture, Humanities: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(1), 33–68.
Sharma, P., & Chan, R. Y. (2016). Demystifying deliberate counterfeit pur-
chase behaviour: Towards a unified conceptual framework. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 34(3), 318–335.
Shoaib, M., & Maguire, L. (2021). How independent brands are resisting
counterfeits. Vogue Business.
Singh, A. (2021). This innovative start-up aims to crack the counterfeit conun-
drum. SME Futures.
Slater, F. (2020). Digital vs physical—Which anti-counterfeiting technology is
best? Packaging Europe.
Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological
analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications.
Smith, R., & Yates, J. (2018). Flourishing fashion. Fashion Studies, 1(1),
5–44.
Staake, T., & Fleisch, E. (2008). Countering counterfeit trade: Illicit market
insights, best-practice strategies, and management toolbox. Springer Sci-
ence & Business Media.
Statista. (2021). Sales losses from counterfeit goods worldwide in 2020, by
retail sector.
Tang, F., Tian, V. I., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2014). Understanding counterfeit
consumption. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(1),
4–20.
Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the
social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
Tassell, C., Bardey, A., & Schat, A. (2022). How to wear happiness: Impact
of wearing clothing labelled sustainable or fast fashion on subjective
well-being. International Journal of Sustainable Fashion & Textiles, 1(1),
63–80.
10 BARDEY ET AL.

Thaichon, P., & Quach, S. (2016). Dark motives-counterfeit purchase frame- AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
work: Internal and external motives behind counterfeit purchase via digi-
tal platforms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 82–91.
Townsend, K., & Sadkowska, A. (2017). Textiles as material Gestalt: Cloth Aurore C. Bardey is an Associate Professor in Marketing at the
as a catalyst in the co-designing process. Journal of Textile Design Burgundy School of Business, France.
Research and Practice, 5(2), 208–231.
Vida, I. (2007). Determinants of consumer willingness to purchase non- Rose Turner is a Lecturer in Psychology at the London College of
deceptive counterfeit products and the European Union. Managing Fashion, UK.
global transitions, 5(3), 253.
Viot, C., Le Roux, A., & Kremer, F. (2014). Attitude towards the purchase Patrice Piccardi is an Associate Professor in Marketing at the Bur-
of counterfeits: Antecedents and effect on intention to purchase. gundy School of Business, France. He is also the head of the Mar-
Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 29(2), 3–31. keting Department at the Burgundy School of Business and the
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of consump-
MSc Luxury Management and Innovation.
tion emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer
Research, 18(1), 84–91.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counter-
feit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.).
How to cite this article: Bardey, A. C., Turner, R., & Piccardi, P.
Open University Press.
Yoo, B., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counter- (2022). Bargaining our emotions: Exploring the lived
feits? ACR North American Advances. experience of purchasing luxury fashion counterfeit. Strategic
Zampetakis, L. A. (2014). The emotional dimension of the consumption of Change, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2521
luxury counterfeit goods: An empirical taxonomy. Marketing Intelli-
gence & Planning, 32(1), 21–40.