counterfiet luxury brand

7/31/2019 Counterfiet Luxury Brand

1/15

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XLVI (April 2009), 247259247

2009, American Marketing Association

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic)

*Keith Wilcox is a doctoral candidate in Marketing (e-mail:[email protected]), and Sankar Sen is Professor of Market-ing (e-mail: [email protected]), Baruch College, City Univer-sity of New York. Hyeong Min Kim is Assistant Professor of Marketing,Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University (e-mail: chkim@

jhu.edu). The authors thank Thomas Devanney and John Lee for theirassistance with stimuli design. Financial support from the Research Foun-dation of the City University of New York in the form of a PSC-CUNYgrant is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors thank the threeanonymous JMR reviewers for their constructive guidance. ChrisJaniszewski served as associate editor for this article.

KEITH WILCOX, HYEONG MIN KIM, and SANKAR SEN*

This research demonstrates that consumers desire for counterfeitluxury brands hinges on the social motivations (i.e., to expressthemselves and/or to fit in) underlying their luxury brand preferences. In

particular, the authors show that both consumers preferences for acounterfeit brand and the subsequent negative change in their prefer-ences for the real brand are greater when their luxury brand attitudesserve a social-adjustive rather than a value-expressive function. Inaddition, consumers moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption affecttheir counterfeit brand preferences only when their luxury brand attitudesserve a value-expressive function. Finally, the authors demonstrate thatthe social functions served by consumers luxury brand attitudes can beinfluenced by elements of the marketing mix (e.g., product design,advertising), thus enabling marketers to curb the demand for counterfeitbrands through specific marketing-mix actions.

Keywords: counterfeiting, luxury brands, attitude functions, social identity,advertising

Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit LuxuryBrands?

Counterfeiting will become the crime of the 21stcentury.

James Moody, former chief,FBI Organized Crime Division

(International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition 2008)

Counterfeit goods are illegal, low-priced, and oftenlower-quality replicas of products that typically possesshigh brand value (Lai and Zaichkowsky 1999). The globalmarket for counterfeits today is estimated to exceed $600billion, accounting for approximately 7% of world trade(World Customs Organization 2004). The ethical caseagainst counterfeiting aside, its adverse effects on businessare well documented and many. For example, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce (2006) holds counterfeiting respon-sible for the loss of more than 750,000 U.S. jobs per year.Perhaps more dire, counterfeiting has also been linked to

the growing global threats of narcotics, weapons, humantrafficking, and terrorism (Thomas 2007). Not surprisingly,

companies are allying with governments and enforcementagencies to devote unprecedented resources to tackle thisglobal problem (International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition2008).

The anticounterfeiting forces, however, seem to be fight-ing a losing battle, particularly in luxury goods markets, inwhich consumers often knowingly purchase counterfeits(Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000). Despite the efforts of mostluxury brand marketers, the International Chamber of Com-merce (2004) estimates that this industry is losing as muchas $12 billion every year to counterfeiting. This suggeststhat, at least in luxury markets, curbing the insatiable globalappetite for counterfeits is essential to winning the war oncounterfeiting (Bloch, Bush, and Campbell 1993). Yet a

clear and actionable understanding of the motivationsunderlying consumers purchase of counterfeit luxurybrands (referred to hereinafter as counterfeit brands)remains elusive (cf. Zaichkowsky 2006).

Given that the market for counterfeit brands relies onconsumers desire for real luxury brands (Hoe, Hogg, andHart 2003; Penz and Stottinger 2005), insights into whypeople purchase luxury brands in the first place are particu-larly relevant to understanding the motives underlyingcounterfeit brand purchases. Much research suggests that,quality considerations aside, people typically consume suchbrands in the service of important social goals (Bearden


2/15

248 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, APRIL 2009

and Etzel 1982; Grubb and Grathwohl 1967). The centralpremise of this article is that these social motivations guidepeoples propensity to consume counterfeit brands. Specifi-cally, we draw on the functional theories of attitudes (Katz1960; Shavitt 1989; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956) to pro-pose that both consumers desire for counterfeit brands andthe extent to which the availability of such counterfeitsalters their preferences for the real brands are determinedby the social functions underlying their attitudes towardluxury brands.

Next, we provide an overview of counterfeiting. We thenintroduce a framework for understanding how peoplesmotivations for consuming luxury brands affect their pref-erences for counterfeit brands. Next, we describe threestudies that test our predictions. Finally, we discuss theimplications of our findings and provide future researchdirections.

COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS

Lai and Zaichkowsky (1999) define counterfeits as ille-gally made products that resemble the genuine goods butare typically of lower quality in terms of performance, reli-

ability, or durability. In contrast, pirated goods are productsthat are exact copies of the original and are typically lim-ited to technology categories, such as software. Counterfeit-ing is one of the oldest crimes in history. Perhaps the earli-est and most widespread form of counterfeiting is that ofcurrency. The counterfeiting of luxury products itself datesas far back as 27 BC, when a wine merchant in Gaul coun-terfeited trademarks on wine amphorae, selling inexpensivelocal wine as expensive Roman wine (Phillips 2005). Bythe thirteenth century, counterfeiting had become so com-mon that the copying of valuable trademarks was made acriminal offense punishable by torture and death in someEuropean countries (Higgins and Rubin 1986).

From the consumers perspective, counterfeiting can be

either deceptive or nondeceptive. Deceptive counterfeitinginvolves purchases in which consumers are not aware thatthe product they are buying is a counterfeit, as is often thecase in categories such as automotive parts, consumer elec-tronics, and pharmaceuticals (Grossman and Shapiro 1988).In other categories, however, consumers are typically awarethat they are purchasing counterfeits. This nondeceptiveform of counterfeiting, which is the focus of this research,is particularly prevalent in luxury brand markets (Nia andZaichkowsky 2000), in which consumers can often distin-guish counterfeits from genuine brands on the basis of dif-ferences in price, the distribution channels, and the inferiorquality of the product itself.

Notably, however, the quality of counterfeit products has

been steadily improving over the past several years,approaching, in a few cases, that of the real brand. This isattributable in substantial part to the shift by many luxurybrand marketers, in their quest for reduced productioncosts, to outsourced manufacturing. For example, some ofthe factories that produce outsourced luxury products haveadded a ghost shift to their production runs to makecounterfeit products, which they can sell at higher margins(Phillips 2005). Although the counterfeits thus producedcontinue to be typically constructed of inferior materials,they are often produced with the same designs, molds, andspecifications as the genuine brands (Parloff 2006). As a

result, in the case of many luxury brands, the counterfeitgenuine distinction is evolving from a dichotomy to moreof a continuum (Global Business LeadersAlliance AgainstCounterfeiting 2005).

Prior research has linked the decision to purchase coun-terfeit products knowingly to many factors, which Eisendand Schuchert-Guler (2006) classify into four categories.The first category, labeled person, includes demographicand psychographic variables, as well as attitudes towardcounterfeiting. For example, prior studies have found thatconsumers who purchase counterfeit products are of lowersocial status (Bloch, Bush, and Campbell 1993) and havemore favorable attitudes toward counterfeiting (Penz andStottinger 2005). Research linking consumers beliefs aboutcounterfeits to their purchase behavior (e.g., Gentry,Putrevu, and Shultz 2006) also falls under this category.The second category focuses on aspects of the product,such as price, uniqueness, and availability. Not surprisingly,consumers likelihood of buying a counterfeit brand isinversely related to the price of the genuine brand (Albers-Miller 1999). The third and fourth categories refer to thesocial and cultural context in which the counterfeit pur-chase decision is made, ranging from cultural norms (Laiand Zaichkowsky 1999) to the shopping environment(Leisen and Nill 2001). For example, consumers are likelyto purchase a counterfeit brand when they react more favor-ably to the shopping environment.

Of particular relevance to our investigation of theindividual-level motives underlying counterfeit brand con-sumption is research that goes beyond price to link counter-feit consumption to social motives, such as the desire tocreate identities, fit in, and/or impress others (Bloch, Bush,and Campbell 1993; Hoe, Hogg, and Hart 2003; Penz andStottinger 2005). Next, we develop a theoretical accountof the role of such social motives in driving counterfeitconsumption.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Functional Theories of Attitudes and Counterfeit Brands

Functional theories of attitudes (Katz 1960; Shavitt1989; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956) suggest that attitudesserve several psychological functions, such as helpingpeople organize and structure their environment (knowl-edge function), attain rewards and avoid punishments (utili-tarian function) and maintain their self-esteem (ego defensefunction). Attitudes also serve important social functions,such as allowing self-expression (value-expressive func-tion) and facilitating self-presentation (social-adjustivefunction). These social functions of attitudes have beenshown to underlie a broad range of consumer responses,

including product evaluations (Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han1992), advertising message processing (Snyder andDeBono 1985), and even the interpurchase time of durables(Grewal, Mehta, and Kardes 2004).

Attitudes serving a social-adjustive function (i.e., social-adjustive attitudes) help people maintain relationships(DeBono 1987; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956). Whenconsumers have a social-adjustive attitude toward a prod-uct, they are motivated to consume it to gain approval insocial situations. Conversely, attitudes serving a value-expressive function (i.e., value-expressive attitudes) helppeople communicate their central beliefs, attitudes, and val-


3/15

Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? 249

1Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han (1992) suggest that consumers focus most onquality when their attitudes serve a utilitarian function rather than a socialone. Conversely, our theorizing pertains to the differences among socialattitude functions in driving consumer focus on quality.

ues to others (Katz 1960). When consumers hold a value-expressive attitude toward a product, they are motivated toconsume it as a form of self-expression (Snyder andDeBono 1985). Prior research has indicated that con-sumers attitudes toward luxury brands may serve a social-adjustive function, a value-expressive function, or both(Shavitt 1989). For example, a person might purchase aLouis Vuitton bag because the brand reflects his or her per-sonality (i.e., self-expression) and/or because it is a statussymbol (i.e., self-presentation).

The functional theories implicate these multiple func-tions or goals served by attitudes, rather than merely atti-tude strength or valence, as key determinants of theattitudebehavior link (Shavitt 1989). More specifically,research by Snyder and DeBono (1985) suggests that con-sumers respond more favorably to image or product formappeals when they hold attitudes serving a social-adjustivefunction because such appeals are consistent with theirsocial goal of projecting a particular image in social set-tings. In contrast, consumers are more responsive to mes-sages that promote intrinsic aspects of products, such asquality or reliability (i.e., product function appeals), whenthey hold attitudes serving a value-expressive functionbecause such messages are more readily interpretable interms of their underlying values and dispositions.1 Weexpect that these differences carry over to luxury brandcontexts as well; that is, social-adjustive attitudes towardluxury brands will motivate consumers to consume suchproducts for form- or image-related reasons, whereas value-expressive attitudes toward luxury brands will motivatethem to consume such products for product function or,more specifically, quality-related reasons. Thus, comparedwith value-expressive attitudes, social-adjustive attitudestoward luxury brands should be associated with a greaterpreference for counterfeit brands because these aredesigned to look like luxury brands (i.e., high resemblance

in terms of product form) but are typically associated withlesser quality (i.e., low resemblance in terms of productfunction).

Notably, this does not imply that value-expressive atti-tudes will always be associated with counterfeit avoidance.Given that consumers holding such attitudes are guided bytheir desire to maximize the consistency between the prod-ucts they consume and their central beliefs, attitudes, andvalues (Snyder and DeBono 1985), their preference forcounterfeit brands is also likely to vary with their valuesand beliefs regarding counterfeiting per se. In particular, agrowing body of research (Hoe, Hogg, and Hart 2003; Tomet al. 1998) suggests that consumers vary widely in theirbeliefs regarding the morality of counterfeit consumption.

Thus, when consumers attitudes toward luxury brandsserve a value-expressive function, we expect their prefer-ence for counterfeits to be moderated by their moral beliefsabout counterfeit consumption: Consumers whose valuesystem dictates that such behavior is not necessarilyimmoral (i.e., favorable moral beliefs) will be more likelyto purchase counterfeit brands than those who believe thatsuch behavior is immoral (i.e., unfavorable moral beliefs).

Conversely, when consumers attitudes serve a social-adjustive function, their preferences for counterfeits shouldbe less susceptible to their moral beliefs because they areless likely to rely on their internal values in making suchdecisions. Formally, we predict the following:

H1: Consumers likelihood of purchasing counterfeit luxurybrands is greater when their attitudes toward luxury brandsserve a social-adjustive function than when their attitudes

serve a value-expressive function.H2: Consumers counterfeit purchase likelihood is more sensi-

tive to their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumptionwhen their luxury brand attitudes serve a value-expressivefunction than when they serve a social-adjustive function.

Preference Change for Real Brand

Recent research (Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000) has ques-tioned the assumption implicit in most anticounterfeitingefforts that the availability of counterfeit brands diminishesdemand for the real brands. Based partly on consumer sur-veys, this research argues that in certain cultural, social, andmarket contexts, counterfeits can even enhance demand forthe real brands. Our individual-level psychological perspec-

tive suggests that changes in consumers preferences for thereal brand, if any, after exposure to a counterfeit branddepend on the social functions underlying their luxurybrand attitudes.

How might exposure to a counterfeit brand alter con-sumers preferences for the real brand? When two productslook alike, such as the counterfeit brand and its real coun-terpart, they are often perceived as being similar (Shocker,Bayus, and Namwoon 2004). However, research on goal-derived categorization suggests that this is not always thecase; personal goals can have a strong influence on howconsumers categorize and compare products (Ratneshwar etal. 2001). When two products fulfill a salient personal goal,consumers judge them to be similar. However, when only

one of the two products satisfies the salient goal, they seemless similar. Notably, even when the surface resemblancebetween the products is high, the lack of goal fulfillment byone product has a negative effect on similarity judgments.

When consumers attitudes serve a social-adjustive func-tion, self-presentation-related goals are likely to be salient.Because both a counterfeit brand and its real counterpartfulfill these important goals, the two products are likely tobe perceived as similar. Thus, the presence of the counter-feit brand will likely diminish preference for the real brandbecause the former dominates the latter on price. Con-versely, when consumers attitudes serve a value-adjustivefunction, their self-expression-related goals are likely to besalient. Because a counterfeit brand does not satisfy these

important personal goals, it is unlikely that consumers willperceive counterfeit brands as being similar to luxurybrands. Consequently, the dissimilarity between two prod-ucts makes it less likely that they will be compared onattributes such as price, even though they may have highsurface resemblance. In such a case, we expect that expo-sure to counterfeit brands will influence preference for thereal brand to a lesser degree, if at all. More formally,

H3: Exposure to a counterfeit brand has a more negative effecton consumers preferences for the real brand when theirluxury brand attitudes serve a social-adjustive function thanwhen they serve a value-expressive function.


4/15


Influencing Attitude Functions and CounterfeitConsumption

What determines the social function served by an atti-tude? Much research (DeBono 1987; Shavitt 1989) pointsto the individual consumer (i.e., personality traits) as theprimary driver of the functions served by attitudes in a spe-cific consumption context. Notably, however, situationalcharacteristics, such as the product category, brand posi-

tioning, promotional cues, and social context, can play animportant role as well (Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han 1992). Ifconsumers propensity for counterfeit luxury goods varieswith the social functions underlying their attitudes, insightsinto the situational determinants of these functions couldallow a luxury brand marketer to go beyond the relativelyimmutable personality traits of its consumers to influencetheir demand for counterfeit brands through the marketingmix. Next, we discuss the roles of two specific aspects ofthe marketing mix, brand conspicuousness and advertisingcopy, in determining the attitude functiondriven demandfor counterfeit brands.

Brand conspicuousness. Luxury brands vary in the extentto which their brand emblem or logo is conspicuous, in

easy sight of the user, and, more important, relevant tosocial others. The logos of some brands (e.g., Gucci) areprominent and ubiquitous, whereas those of others (e.g.,Marc Jacobs) are less discernible visually. We propose thatthe hypothesized attitude functionbased differences inconsumers preferences for both the counterfeit and the realbrand (H1H3) will be greater when the luxury brandsproducts have greater brand conspicuousness. Why mightthis be so? Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han (1992) suggest thatbecause product categories vary in the extent to which theyhelp consumers achieve their goals, the category in a par-ticular consumption context restricts the functions that canbe served by consumers attitudes. At the same time, theypoint to certain brand-level features, such as a brands

unique attributes or positioning within a category, as poten-tial determinants of the function served by consumersproduct judgments or attitudes. Given that, over time, thesocial and cultural aspirations associated with a luxurybrand come to reside in its emblem or logo, we propose thatthe extent to which a luxury brand fulfills a consumerssocial goals (i.e., value expressive and social adjustive) islikely to depend on brand conspicuousness (Bearden andEtzel 1982). Indeed, luxury and exclusivity often exist atthe brand (e.g., Rolex) rather than the product-category(e.g., watch) level, making the conspicuousness of a branda particularly important determinant of the social functionsthat can be served by attitudes toward it. Specifically, whenthe brand is inconspicuous, consumers attitudes toward it

will be less able to serve a social function. As a result, insuch cases, the social attitude functionbased differences incounterfeit consumption are likely to be minimal. Moreformally,

H4a: The attitude functionbased difference in consumerscounterfeit purchase likelihood (i.e., H1) is greater whenthe brand is more conspicuous.

H4b: The moderating effect of consumers moral beliefs aboutcounterfeit consumption on the attitude functioncounterfeit purchase likelihood relationship (i.e., H2) isstronger when the brand is more conspicuous.

H4c: The attitude functionbased difference in the negativeeffect of exposure to a counterfeit brand on consumers

preference for the real brand (i.e., H3) is greater when thebrand is more conspicuous.

Advertising copy. Advertising is a crucial vehicle forbuilding a luxury brands image and communicating itssocial/cultural meaning. We propose that the copy used insuch luxury brand advertising can also influence the pri-macy of the social function underlying consumers brandjudgments or attitudes. Support for this assertion comes

from research documenting the influence of advertising-based contextual primes on the salience of consumptiongoals (Labroo and Lee 2006) and, more specifically, thefunctions performed by attitudes (Shavitt and Fazio 1991).This is also consistent with the broader literature on iden-tity salience (for a review, see Forehand, Deshpand, andReed 2002), a state characterized by heightened sensitivityto identity-relevant information, that underscores the role ofenvironmental cues, such as visual images, words, andidentity primes in the media context, in differentially acti-vating specific social identities and associated consumptiongoals (e.g., self-expression versus self-presentation) withina consumers social self-schema.

Together, these research streams suggest that exposing

consumers of a luxury brand to advertising messages thatdifferentially prime the social goals associated with value-expressive versus social-adjustive attitudes could influencetheir preference for counterfeits. We expect that when con-sumers view an advertisement that primes social-adjustivegoals, they will be more likely to purchase a counterfeitversion of the brand than when they view a similar adver-tisement that primes value-expressive goals. We also expectthat the previously discussed moderating effect of con-sumers moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption (i.e.,H2) occurs only when consumers are exposed to a value-expressive, rather than a social-adjustive, advertisement. Inaddition, the counterfeit-based adverse change in con-sumers preferences for the real brand (i.e., H3) should

occur when consumers are exposed to a social-adjustive,rather than a value-expressive, advertisement.

H5a: Consumers likelihood of purchasing counterfeit brands isgreater when they are exposed to a social-adjustive adver-tisement for a luxury brand than when they are exposed toa value-expressive advertisement for that brand.

H5b: Consumers counterfeit purchase likelihood is more sensi-tive to their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumptionwhen they are exposed to a value-expressive advertise-ment for a luxury brand than when they are exposed to asocial-adjustive advertisement for that brand.

H5c: Exposure to a counterfeit brand has a more negative effecton consumers preferences for the real brand when theyare exposed to a social-adjustive advertisement for a

luxury brand than when they are exposed to a value-expressive advertisement for that brand.

Next, we present three studies that are designed to testour predictions. In Study 1, we measure participants atti-tude functions toward luxury brands to demonstrate attitudefunctionbased differences in their responses to counterfeitbrands. In Study 2, we replicate Study 1s findings in anexperimental setting and examine the moderating effect ofbrand conspicuousness. Study 3 examines the efficacy of anadvertising-based manipulation of attitude function inobtaining the predicted differences in counterfeit and realbrand preferences.


5/15

Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? 251

STUDY 1: THE INFLUENCE OF ATTITUDEFUNCTIONS ON COUNTERFEIT PURCHASES

The purpose of Study 1 was to test H1 and H2 in a natu-ralistic, externally valid context. To do so, we measuredrather than manipulated the social functions underlying par-ticipants attitudes toward luxury brands and examined therelationship of these functions, in interaction with partici-pants moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption, to their

likelihood of purchasing a counterfeit version of a productby their favorite luxury brand.

Method

Participants and procedure. Seventy-nine undergraduatestudents (56% female) at a large northeastern universitytook part in the study as part of a course requirement. Wefirst elicited participants attitude functions toward luxurybrands to assess the extent to which their attitudes servedvalue-expressive or social-adjustive functions. We thenasked them to indicate their favorite luxury fashion brand.We restricted participants responses to fashion brands toprevent them from selecting a luxury brand from an infre-quently counterfeited category, such as luxury cars. We

then asked participants to rate how likely they would be topurchase a counterfeit version of a product by their favoriteluxury fashion brand. Finally, we asked participants to pro-vide their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption(Moral Beliefs).

Measures. We assessed participants attitude functionstoward luxury brands on seven-point Likert scales (seeAppendix A). These included a four-item measure of value-expressive function (e.g., Luxury brands help me expressmyself; M = 3.44, = .89) and a four-item measure ofsocial-adjustive function (e.g., Luxury brands help me fitinto important social situations; M = 3.73, = .74),adapted from the work of Grewal, Mehta, and Kardes(2004). We counterbalanced the presentation order of the

two sets of measures. We assessed purchase intent for thecounterfeit brand on a seven-point scale (1 = would defi-nitely not purchase, and 7 = would definitely purchase;M = 3.04). We measured moral beliefs in terms of partici-pants beliefs about people who purchase counterfeit prod-ucts on a three-item semantic differential scale (1 =immoral, and 7 = moral; 1 = unethical, and 7 = ethi-cal; 1 = insincere, and 7 = sincere; M = 4.09, = .79)to minimize the likelihood of socially desirable responses(Fisher 1993) to a potentially sensitive issue. Because allmulti-item measures were reliable, we averaged the itemsto form a composite measure of each construct.

Results

The three most frequently mentioned favorite luxurybrands, in order, were Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Rolex. Notsurprisingly, some participants attitudes toward luxurybrands appeared to serve both social functions. The correla-tion between the value-expressive function measure and thesocial-adjustive function measure was .64 (p < .05). Con-versely, the correlations between these measures and themoral beliefs measure were low (value expressive = .22,and social adjustive = .09). To test H1 and H2, weregressed purchase intent on value-expressive function,social-adjustive function, moral beliefs, the value-expressive function moral beliefs cross-product, and the

2Because the attitude function measures were correlated, we also rantwo separate linear regression models (one for value-expressive functionand one for social-adjustive function). The results replicated those of thefull model.

social-adjustive function moral beliefs cross-product (F =7.42,p < .05, R2 = .33). We mean-centered all variables(Aiken and West 1991).

In line with H1, social-adjustive function was a signifi-cant, positive predictor of purchase intent (b = .42; t = 2.01,p < .05), whereas value-expressive function was not (b =.09; t = .56, n.s.). In addition, the interactive effect ofmoral beliefs and value-expressive function was significant(b = .31; t = 2.11,p < .05), whereas that of moral beliefsand social-adjustive function was not (b = .04; t = .20,n.s.).2 To better understand the nature of the value-expressive function moral beliefs interaction, we probedthe slopes of two regression lines (Aiken and West 1991):one for strong value-expressive function (one standarddeviation above the mean) and one for weak value-expressive function (one standard deviation below themean). As we expected, moral beliefs were a positive pre-dictor of purchase intent when the value-expressive func-tion was strong (b = 1.07; t = 3.35,p < .05) but not when itwas weak (b = .36; t = 1.39, n.s.). These results support ourprediction (H2) that participants purchase intent will bemore likely to vary with their moral beliefs when their lux-

ury brand attitudes serve a value-expressive function thanwhen they serve a social-adjustive function.In summary, this study provides evidence for our central

contention that consumers likelihood of purchasing coun-terfeit brands varies predictably with the social functionsserved by their luxury brand attitudes. In Study 2, weundertake a more internally valid examination of our pre-dictions by controlling for both the brand participantsrespond to and the primary social function served by theirattitudes. In addition, we examine both how exposure to acounterfeit brand affects consumers preferences for thereal brand (H3) and the moderating effect of brandconspicuousness (H4).

STUDY 2: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF BRAND

CONSPICUOUSNESSIn line with the objectives of this experiment, all partici-

pants responded to counterfeit and real versions of the sameluxury brand. In addition, because our theorizing pits thetwo often-correlated social attitude functions against eachother, we chose to isolate the effects of each of these func-tions by measuring a trait-based determinant of the primarysocial function served by a consumers attitudes, includingthose toward luxury brands. Specifically, prior research hassuggested that in social contexts, the attitudes of low self-monitors serve predominantly a value-expressive function,whereas those of high self-monitors serve predominantly asocial-adjustive function (DeBono 1987, 2006; Spangen-berg and Sprott 2006). Therefore, in this study, we con-trasted the two social attitude functions of interest by exam-ining differences between high and low self-monitoringparticipants (Snyder 1974).

Method

Participants and design. One hundred thirty-eight femaleundergraduate students at a large northeastern universityparticipated as part of a course requirement. The experi-


6/15


3To ensure that participants purchase intent did not influence theirmoral belief responses, we reran this study, counterbalancing the order inwhich participants provided their moral beliefs and purchase intent. Mea-surement order did not affect participants moral beliefs or purchase intentand the hypothesis tests yielding equivalent results.

ment was a 2 (brand conspicuousness: logo versus nologo) 2 (attitude function: value expressive versus socialadjustive) 2 (moral beliefs: unfavorable versus favorable)between-subjects design.

Stimuli. Participants responded to color images of aLouis Vuitton handbag. The stimuli for both brand conspic-uousness conditions were created from the same image ofan actual Louis Vuitton handbag, which was digitallyaltered to have no discernible logo in the no-logo conditionand a large, prominent logo in the center of the productsexterior in the logo condition (Appendix B). We selectedhandbags because it is a widely consumed, relevant cate-gory for our participant population and counterfeiting isextremely prevalent (Thomas 2007). In addition, this cate-gory is a public one so the role of social attitude functionsin the luxury brand purchase decision is, a priori, likely tobe high (Bearden and Etzel 1982). We selected Louis Vuit-ton as the brand because it is not only one of the mostwidely known luxury brands but also one of the most fre-quently mentioned favorite luxury brands among the femaleparticipants of Study 1. Finally, because this brand hashandbags with both highly visible and subtle logos, ourbrand conspicuousness manipulation was realistic andcredible.

Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to oneof the two brand conspicuousness conditions in which theyviewed an image of the Louis Vuitton handbag with orwithout a logo. Participants in both conditions wereinformed that the handbag was a counterfeit version of anactual Louis Vuitton handbag that had been designed tolook exactly like the genuine version. Participants were alsotold that the counterfeit handbag was being sold at a pricethey could afford and were subsequently asked to providetheir purchase intent. We then assessed the effect of beingexposed to the counterfeit brand on participants prefer-ences for the luxury brand (H3) by having them indicate

how the information they had just learned (i.e., the avail-ability of the counterfeit) affected their desire to purchase agenuine Louis Vuitton handbag in the future. Finally, weelicited participants moral beliefs toward counterfeit con-sumption and their primary social attitude function throughself-monitoring.

Measures. We measured purchase intent using the Study1 item (M = 2.91). We assessed preference change forLouis Vuitton handbags (i.e., the actual brand) on a seven-point scale (3 = much less likely to buy, 0 = nochange, and +3 = much more likely to buy; M = .14).We assessed attitude function using the 25-item self-monitoring scale (Snyder 1974; M = 11.45, KR-20 = .72).We measured moral beliefs using the same three-item scale

as in Study 1 (M = 4.11,

= .88). We obtained these twomeasures after participants reacted to the luxury brand toensure that their mere elicitation did not influence thedependent variables.3 Notably, there were no differences foreither of the two measures (self-monitoring: MNoLogo =

11.40, MLogo = 11.50; t = .14, n.s.; moral beliefs:MNoLogo = 3.98, MLogo = 4.16; t = .78, n.s.) across the twobrand conspicuousness conditions, confirming theirintegrity as independent variables. In addition, there was nosignificant difference in moral beliefs between low andhigh self-monitors (moral beliefs: MLow = 4.01, MHigh =4.13; t = .47, n.s.), verifying that responses to this sociallysensitive issue did not vary with the extent to which theyself monitor.

Results

We analyzed purchase intent and preference changeusing analysis of variance and analysis of covariance,respectively, with brand conspicuousness, attitude function,moral beliefs, and their interactions as independent factors(R2Purchase Intent = .19, R2Preference Change = .14). Because thepredicted changes in consumers preferences for the realbrand (i.e., H3) are based on their broader, goal-based simi-larity assessments of the two brands (i.e., counterfeit andreal) rather than on their actual consumption of a counter-feit brand, we controlled for the obvious effect of purchaseintent on preference change by including it as a covariate(F(1, 129) = 4.28, p < .05) in the relevant analyses. Weobtained two levels of attitude function (value expressiveand social adjustive) and moral beliefs (favorable and unfa-vorable) by dividing the samples self-monitoring andmoral beliefs scores around their median values (Shavittand Fazio 1991). Comparable analyses using the continu-ous measures of these factors yielded equivalent results.

Purchase intent. Consistent with H1, the social-adjustiveparticipants had a higher purchase intent than the value-expressive ones (MValue Expressive = 2.48, MSocial Adjustive =3.31; F(1, 130) = 8.91,p < .05, 2 = .05). In addition, inline with H2, the purchase intent of the value-expressiveparticipants varied significantly with their moral beliefs(MUnfavorable = 1.83, MFavorable = 2.95; F(1, 130) = 5.87,p

counterfiet luxury brand

Documents