H1.

A consumer who more strongly believes in the price

quality inference has a more negative attitude toward
counterfeits.
H2. Consumers who are more (less) risk averse will have
unfavorable (favorable) attitude toward counterfeits.
H3. Consumers who perceive more (less) risk in
counterfeits will have unfavorable (favorable) attitude
toward counterfeits.
H4. Consumers who attribute more (less) integrity
to themselves will have unfavorable (favorable)
attitude toward counterfeits.
H5. Consumers sense of accomplishment will affect their
attitude toward counterfeits.
H6. Consumers perceiving that their
friends/relatives approve (do not approve) their
behavior of buying a counterfeit will have
favorable (unfavorable) attitude toward
counterfeits.
H7A. Consumers who have already bought (have never
bought) a counterfeit have more favorable (unfavorable)
attitude toward counterfeits.
H7B. Consumers who have already bought (have never
bought) a counterfeit have more favorable (unfavorable)

Proposed Hypotheses Statement Based on the

structure model and the above overview of

previous researches on counterfeit purchasing,

four hypotheses are proposed.
H1: Intention to purchase counterfeit products
increases with more positive customer attitude
towards purchase
H2: Intention to purchase counterfeit products
increases with consumer perception of normative
pressure from important others to support their
own purchases of counterfeits.
H3: Intention to purchase counterfeits increases
with perceived behavioral control.
H4: Intention to purchase counterfeits reduces
with perceived behavioral control of purchasers of
original products.

Hypotheses
Drawing on the previous research, this study attempts to develop a
model of illicit consumption behavior. This study proposes that the
decision to purchase an illicit product, instead of a legitimately
offered product, can be explained by a combination of variables
drawn from the study of criminal behavior and buyer behavior. The
behavior is predictable based on three
variables:
(1) the selling price;
(2) the situation under which the purchase takes place; and
(3) the risk associated with the purchase.
The model is further complicated by the interaction of the product
offered. A significant F-statistics, for the models estimated on the
individual level, will indicate that, overall, the variables predict a
willingness to buy illicit goods. Given a significant model, several
hypotheses can be examined. The first of these is the obvious
economic hypothesis regarding price.
H1: Willingness to buy is negatively associated with selling price.
Significance of the price coefficient will support this hypothesis. It is
expected, however, that the importance of price will not be the
same for counterfeit and stolen goods. Because counterfeit goods
are typically of lower quality than goods produced by the brand
name manufacturer, price
should be a more important variable in the consideration to
purchase a counterfeit good.
H1a: Price will provide a higher degree of influence in the decision to
purchase counterfeit goods, compared to stolen goods.

This hypothesis will be supported if the mean interaction weight for

price and counterfeit is significant and greater than the mean
interaction weight for price and stolen. The social pressures exerted
on the actual buying situation are also expected to affect willingness
to buy. The perceived support or lack of support by others will affect
the decision to participate in a criminal activity. Several
hypotheses follow from this train of thought. The literature suggests
that people are likely to give in to social pressure when others are
participating also; hence:

H2: A buyer is most willing to buy an illicit good when others present
are buying illicit goods.
Significant negative weights for the variables representing the two
alternative buying situations will provide support for this hypothesis.
Considering this a base level, two additional hypotheses, based on
two other buying settings, are suggested. When a buyer is alone,
they are no longer
under the social pressure to participate in the activity; hence: H2a: A
buyer is less willing to buy an illicit good when they are alone, than
when others are present and buying the illicit product.
A significant negative coefficient for the dummy variable
representing the``alone'' buying situation will provide support for
this hypothesis. A buyer, however, will not want people who might
not support a decision to buy illicit goods to know about the
purchase; therefore, the situation where the buyer is alone, should
be preferred to a setting where people are present, but not
buying. This logic suggests that a buyer will want to avoid a
situation where their behavior is outside of the group norm; hence:
H2b: A buyer is least willing to buy an illicit good when others are
present and not buying the illicit product.
A significant negative coefficient for the dummy variable
representing the ``friend present, but not making a purchase''
buying situation will provide support for this hypothesis. The
literature suggests conflicting evidence regarding perceived criminal
risk. Although evidence suggests that criminal risk is a deterrent to
crime, the literature also suggests that people will participate in
deviant acts if they can rationalize that the act really is not bad.
While it is expected that the greater
the level of perceived criminal risk, the less likely a person is to
engage in illicit behavior, the ability to rationalize the behavior will
moderate the effect.
H3: Willingness to buy illicit goods is negatively associated with the
level of perceived criminal risk.
Significance of the perceived criminal risk coefficient will support
this hypothesis. However, the importance of perceived criminal risk
is not expected to be the same for both counterfeit and stolen

goods. Because counterfeit goods are likely to be explained away as

not ``really illegal''
more easily than stolen goods, perceived criminal risk should be a
more important variable in the consideration to purchase a stolen
good.
H3a: Perceived criminal risk will provide a higher degree of influence
in the decision to purchase stolen goods, compared to counterfeit
goods.

This hypothesis will be supported if a significant

mean interaction weight for perceived criminal risk
and stolen is greater than the mean interaction
weight for perceived criminal risk and counterfeit.

The more positive the intentions towards

purchasing fake products are, the more likely
consumers will actually purchase them.
H2: The more consumers defend counterfeiters, e.g., because
of their more efficient business practices etc., the stronger
is their intention to purchase counterfeits.
H3: The stronger the belief of consumers that purchasing
counterfeits creates a smart image, the stronger the
intention to purchase counterfeits.
H4: The stronger the perceived embarrassment potential of
counterfeits, the weaker the intention to purchase counterfeits.
H5: The more consumers perceive a normative pressure from
important others on the decision to buy counterfeits, the
stronger the intention to actually purchase them.
H6: The higher the perceived behavioral control of purchasing
counterfeits, the stronger the intention to purchase

counterfeits.
H7: The weaker the self identity of the consumer, the stronger
the intention to purchase counterfeits.
H8a: Readiness to take risks has a positive impact on the
degree of defending counterfeiting due to e.g. efficient
production and/or distribution.
H8b: Readiness to take risks has a negative impact on the
embarrassment potential of counterfeit goods.
H8c: Readiness to take risks has a positive impact on the
perception that purchasing counterfeits is a smart consumer
behavior.
H9a: Fashion involvement has a positive impact on the degree
of defending counterfeiters due to e.g. efficient
production and/or distribution.
H9b: Fashion involvement has a positive impact on the embarrassment
potential of counterfeit goods.
H9c: Fashion involvement has a negative impact on the
perception that purchasing counterfeits is a smart consumer
behavior.
H10a: The higher the ethical predisposition the more embarrassed
a consumer reacts when being detected buying
counterfeits.
H10b: A strong ethical predisposition weakens the normative
pressure of important others.
H10c: A strong ethical predisposition strengthens the social
identity of the consumer.
H11: Price consciousness is mediating the effect of intention
to purchase counterfeits on the actual behavior.
H12: The effect of the intention to purchase counterfeits on
the actual behavior is moderated by the price difference
between counterfeit and original product.