See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228881291

Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: A review and extension

Article  in  Journal of Consumer Marketing · January 2007

DOI: 10.1108/07363760710720975

CITATIONS READS
299 7,284

4 authors, including:

Celso Augusto de Matos Cristiana Trindade Ituassu

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas
66 PUBLICATIONS   2,272 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
43 PUBLICATIONS   2,230 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Consumer Debt - Endividamento de Consumidores View project

Services Marketing and Strategy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi on 17 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits:
a review and extension
Celso Augusto de Matos
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PPGA-EA-UFRGS), Brazil
Cristiana Trindade Ituassu
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil, and
Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PPGA-EA-UFRGS), Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to propose and test a model that integrates the main predictors of consumers’ attitude and behavioral
intentions toward counterfeits; to help companies understand the main factors influencing consumer behavior toward counterfeits and create effective
anti-piracy strategies.
Design/methodology/approach – An integrated model is proposed following the studies by Ang et al. and Huang et al. A survey with 400
consumers was conducted in the Brazilian market and the Structural Equation Modeling technique was used to test the hypothesized relationships.
Findings – The main contribution of the paper is to show that consumer intentions to buy counterfeited products are dependent on the attitudes they
have toward counterfeits, which in turn are more influenced by perceived risk, whether consumers have bought a counterfeit before, subjective norm,
integrity, price-quality inference and personal gratification. The paper reinforces the mediator role of attitude in the relationship between these
antecedents and behavioral intentions. Moreover, previous experience with counterfeits consumption does not have a direct effect on behavioral
intentions, but only an indirect effect through attitude.
Practical implications – The paper contributes to inform policy makers and managers of brands about the main predictors of consumer’s attitudes
toward counterfeits. In this way, ads intended to discourage consumption of counterfeits could use the perceived risk as the main message appeal.
Originality/value – This paper investigates the key antecedents and consequences of consumer attitudes toward counterfeits by integrating and
testing two recent models dealing with this subject in the marketing literature.

Keywords Attitudes, Consumer behaviour, Counterfeiting, Risk assessment, Brazil

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Counterfeiting is a significant and growing problem
worldwide, occurring both in less and well developed
countries. In the USA economy, the cost of counterfeiting is
estimated to be up to $200 billion per year (Chaudhry et al.,
2005). Considering the countries worldwide, almost 5 percent
of all products are counterfeit, according to the International
Anticounterfeiting Coalition (IACC, 2005) and the
International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI, 2003).
A number of definitions have been used for product
counterfeiting. In this paper, we use the one given by Cordell
et al. (1996) and also used by Chaudhry et al. (2005): “any
unauthorized manufacturing of goods whose special
characteristics are protected as intellectual property rights
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
24/1 (2007) 36– 47
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363760710720975]
(trademarks, patents and copyrights) constitutes product
counterfeiting.”
Actions to limit counterfeits can arise from both supply and
demand side, considering the tactics companies employ to
deter counterfeits (Chaudhry et al., 2005) and the motivations
that make a counterfeit an interesting option for some
customers (Huang et al., 2004; Ang et al., 2001). Because
research addressing counterfeit purchasing from the
consumer’s perspective is still incipient, especially
considering the antecedents of the construct “attitudes
toward counterfeits”, this study focuses on the demand side.
The aim is to propose and to test a model that deals with the
main predictors of consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
and their intentions to buy such products, integrating the
main findings existing in the literature.
The article is presented in five parts. First, a brief review of
the main antecedents and consequences of the consumer
attitudes toward counterfeits were examined, resulting in a
conceptual model to be tested. Second, valid scales for the
constructs considered in the model were identified in the
literature. Third, the conceptual model was tested by means
of the structural equation modeling. Fourth, a discussion of
the main results is presented, comparing findings with
The authors are thankful for the support provided by the Brazilian
Funding Council for Research (Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa – CNPq.)

36
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
previous studies. Finally, the conclusions are presented,
including the main contribution of the study and strategies
managers can use in order to reduce consumer attitudes
toward counterfeits.
Theoretical background and conceptual model
Consumer attitude toward counterfeits
“Attitude” is “. . .a learned predisposition to behave in a
consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a
given object” (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997, p. 167). Indeed,
according to Bagozzi et al. (2002, p. 4), the most widely
accepted definition of attitude conceives of it as an evaluation,
for example: “. . .a psychological tendency that is expressed by
evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or
disfavor.” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 1).
Attitude is considered to be highly correlated with one’s
intentions, which in turn is a reasonable predictor of behavior
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In these authors’ rationale (i.e.
theory of reasoned action), not only the attitude one has
toward an object will affect his/her intentions toward it, but
also what influences one receives from his/her reference group
will be important, namely the subjective norms. In summary,
intentions to perform a behavior will be influenced by
individual and interpersonal level factors.
In the context of this study, consumer evaluation of
counterfeits will be an important predictor of his/her intention
to buy a counterfeit, as well as how much agreement about
this behavior he/she receives from his/her reference group. In
this way, what factors influence consumer evaluation of a
counterfeit becomes the focus of the investigation. Based on
the literature review, the main predictors are presented below.
Price quality inference
As the two main differences consumers perceive between a
counterfeit and an original product are the lower prices and
the poorer guaranties, price and risk constructs are likely to be
important factors related to attitude toward counterfeits
(Huang et al., 2004). In fact, previous studies have shown that
price difference is an important variable when choosing a
counterfeit (Cespedes et al., 1988; Cordell et al., 1996).
Inference of quality by the price level is a common belief
among consumers and an important factor in consumer
behavior (Chapman and Wahlers, 1999). In this sense,
consumers’ tendency to believe that “high (low) price means
high (low) quality” becomes even more important when there
is little information about the product quality or the consumer
is unable to judge product quality (Tellis and Gaeth, 1990).
As proposed also by Huang et al. (2004), considering that
counterfeits are usually sold at lower prices, the greater the
relationship price-quality for the consumer, the lower his/her
perception of quality for the counterfeits. For this reason, it is
expected that:
H1. A consumer who more strongly believes in the price-
quality inference has a more negative attitude toward
counterfeits.
Risk averseness and perceived risk in counterfeits purchasing
Risk averseness is defined as the propensity to avoid taking
risks and is generally considered a personality variable
(Bonoma and Johnston, 1979; Zinkhan and Karande,
1990). This psychological consumer trait is an important
characteristic for discriminating between buyers and non-
buyers of a product category, especially a risky one (e.g.
37
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
Internet shoppers and non-shoppers, Donthu and Garcia,
1999). In the context of counterfeits, Huang et al. (2004)
found a significant inverse relationship between risk
averseness and attitude. Following these authors’ rationale,
we expected that:
H2. Consumers who are more (less) risk averse will have
unfavorable (favorable) attitude toward counterfeits.
As stated in H2, consumers believe that counterfeits are sold
with lower prices and poorer guaranties. Because of this, the
risk variable is as important as the price-quality inference.
The concept of perceived risk more often used in marketing
literature defines risk in terms of the consumer’s perceptions
of the uncertainty and adverse consequences of buying a
product or service (Dowling and Staelin, 1994). Hence,
consumers judge what are the chances that a problem might
occur and also what will be the negative consequences of such
problem, and this judgment will influence every stage of the
consumer decision-making process. As the nature of these
problems vary, the risk might include different components,
such as performance, financial, safety, social, psychological,
and time/opportunity dimensions (Havlena and DeSarbo,
1991).
Albers-Miller (1999) found a significant role of the risk
factor on the purchasing of counterfeits. In this context, a
consumer may consider that:
.
the product will not perform as well as an original item
and there will be no warranty from the seller;
.
choosing a counterfeit will not bring the best possible
monetary gain;
.
the product may not be as safe the original one
. the selection of a counterfeit will affect in a negative way
how others perceive them; and
.
he/she will waste time, lose convenience or waste effort in
having to repeat a purchase. In this sense, it is
hypothesized that:
H3. Consumers who perceive more (less) risk in
counterfeits will have unfavorable (favorable) attitude
toward counterfeits.
Integrity
Consumer purchase of a counterfeit is not a criminal act, but
as consumer participation in a counterfeit transaction
supports illegal activity (i.e. counterfeit selling), consumer’s
respect for lawfulness might explain how much engagement
he/she will have in buying counterfeits. Indeed, research
shows that consumers’ willingness to purchase counterfeit
products is negatively related to attitudes toward lawfulness
(Cordell et al., 1996). In this sense, those consumers who
have lower ethical standards are expected to feel less guilty
when buying a counterfeit (Ang et al., 2001). Rather, they
rationalize their behavior in a way to reduce the cognitive
dissonance of an unethical behavior. Using this rationale, we
expect that:
H4. Consumers who attribute more (less) integrity to
themselves will have unfavorable (favorable) attitude
toward counterfeits.
Personal gratification
Personal gratification concerns the need for a sense of
accomplishment, social recognition, and to enjoy the finer
things in life (Ang et al., 2001). There are conflicting results in
this aspect in the literature because Bloch et al. (1993) suggest
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
that consumers choosing a counterfeit see themselves as less
well off financially, less confident, less successful and lower
status than counterfeit non-buyers; on the other hand, result
found by Ang et al. (2001) showed no significant influence of
personal gratification on consumer attitudes toward
counterfeits. Because of this, we do not hypothesize the
direction of the relationship, but only that:
H5. Consumers’ sense of accomplishment will affect their
attitude toward counterfeits.
Subjective norm
Subjective norm is a social factor referring to the perceived
social pressure to perform or not to perform a given behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). Consumers may be informationally
susceptible, when expertise from others influences their
choice (e.g. when one does not know the product category),
and also normatively susceptible, when they are more
interested in making a good impression to others (Bearden
et al., 1989). Regarding counterfeits, friends and relatives may
act as inhibitors or contributors to the consumption,
depending on how much this behavior is approved by them.
Hence, it is expected that:
H6. Consumers perceiving that their friends/relatives
approve (do not approve) their behavior of buying a
counterfeit will have favorable (unfavorable) attitude
toward counterfeits.
Previous experience
Research has shown that counterfeits buyers are different
from non-buyers, with the former viewing such purchases as
less risky, trusting stores that sell counterfeits and not viewing
this purchase as unethical (Ang et al., 2001). Hence in this
study, it is expected that:
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) behavioral intentions toward
counterfeits.
Behavioral Intentions
The link attitude-behavioral intentions has been extensively
examined in the marketing literature. According to the
Theory of Reasoned Action, attitude is positively correlated
with behavioral intentions, which in turn is an antecedent of
the real behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Indeed,
research has found support on this relationship (Kim and
Hunter, 1993). In the context of counterfeits, it is expected
that:
H8: Consumers with more favorable (unfavorable)
attitudes toward counterfeits will have more favorable
(unfavorable) behavioral intentions toward these
products.
Conceptual model
Based on the theoretical background just presented, Figure 1
shows the model proposed and submitted to empirical test.
38
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
Method
A survey was conducted among consumers in two big
Brazilian cities. They were interviewed in the streets close to
the points where counterfeited products were being sold.
Interviewers were trained by the authors in administrating the
survey instrument and were instructed to include in the
sample people with different profile, considering age, gender,
education and income. A question concerning whether
participant had already bought a counterfeited product was
also included in the instrument. Data collection was
performed both on week and weekend days. A total of 400
individuals answered the survey instrument and were used in
the data analysis.
Based on the literature, the authors built the survey
instrument, using scales that were already validated in
previous research. Table I summarizes the items used for
each construct, as well as the authors used as reference.
Participants answered these items using Likert scales varying
from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Only
the scale of behavioral intentions used a different format, with
anchors varying from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). In
this study it was not specified any counterfeited product in
particular. Questions considered the expression
“counterfeited products” in general because the aim at this
moment was to assess consumer attitudes toward
counterfeited products overall.
After data collection, the analysis followed these steps:
.
descriptive statistics for the scale items and for the
demographic variables;
.
missing values and outliers detection;
.
linearity between the scale items;
.
dimensionality using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA);
.
reliability and validity of the scale items using internal
consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha), as well as
composite reliability and average variance extracted as
suggested in the measurement literature (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988); and
.
estimation of model parameters and interpretation.
Results
Descriptive analysis
The following profile was found among the participants: 230
(57.6 percent) were female, 74 (18.5 percent) were 20 years
old or less, 86 (21.5 percent) were between 21 and 25 years,
47 (11.8 percent) between 26 and 30 years, 86 (21.6 percent)
were between 30 and 40 years and 106 (26.6 percent) had 41
years or more. In terms of education, 208 (52 percent) had
already completed high school, followed by those who had
not, 120 (30 percent). Concerning personal income, the
majority (171 or 43 percent) said they received monthly up to
R$500.00 (equivalent to US$230.00), followed by 149 (37
percent) in the range between R$500.00 and R$1,000 (149 or
37 percent) and 79 (20 percent) with more than R$1,000 by
month. Most of the participants (279 or 70 percent) affirmed
that they had already bought a counterfeit.
The scale items presented means varying from 2.15 (item “I
like shopping for gray market goods”) to 6.88 (item “I admire
responsible people”). In general, the scale means indicate that
respondents manifested unfavorable attitudes toward
counterfeited products and low behavioral intentions toward
them.
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
Figure 1 Conceptual model for attitude toward counterfeited products
Comparing the scores of the scales with the demographic
variables, no significant differences were found between man
and women, neither between different ranges of age,
education nor income.
Due to the data collection process (i.e. personal interview),
questionnaires did not present missing values because
interviewers were instructed to collect all the information
from each participant. These data were submitted to the
outliers analysis suggested by Hair et al. (1998, p. 69), namely
computing the Mahalanobis distance and excluding cases
with significant high values. Using this procedure, 17 cases
were identified and excluded from the data set. These cases
were characterized as having lower means in the items
referring to perceived risk and higher values in the propensity
to buy counterfeited products, when compared to the rest of
the sample. Analysis of variance showed significant differences
in these means ( p , 0.05).
Linearity analysis was performed by checking the
correlations between all items used in the questionnaire.
Considering items from the same construct, the higher value
found was 0.76 (i.e. items bi1-bi2 from Table I), suggesting
there was no problem of multicollinearity in the data (see
Tables II and III). Asymmetry was found in all variables when
analyzing the normality graphs for each of them.
Nevertheless, data were not submitted to transformations.
Rather, the authors used different methods for estimating the
39
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
parameters, when testing the conceptual model, and
compared the stability of the results.
Dimensionality
The scales used to measure the constructs of the conceptual
model were submitted to the Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) in order to test their dimensionality. Using Principal
Axis Factoring as the extraction method and Oblimin as the
rotation method and eigenvalues greater than one, seven
factors were extracted (see Table IV). A simulation with other
methods (e.g. Principal Components and Varimax rotation)
produced similar results.
Results presented in Table IV suggested that dimensionality
was not found in only one case, between the constructs of
attitude and behavioral intentions, which grouped together in
one factor.
Reliability and validity
Scales were analyzed in terms of their reliability, by means of
the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and composite
reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and also validity,
considering convergent and discriminant validity.
Reliability, initially assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was
computed in two stages: considering the original items of each
scale and after the exclusion of those with lower correlation
with the scale. After this refinement, values ranged from 0.46
(risk averseness) to 0.87 (integrity).
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits Journal of Consumer Marketing
Celso Augusto de Matos et al. Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47

Table I Descriptive statistics

Scale Mean SD
Price quality inference (Lichtenstein et al., 1993, Huang et al., 2004)
PQ1 Generally speaking, the higher the price of a product, the higher the quality 3.86 2.08
PQ2 The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality 3.64 1.99
PQ3 You always have to pay a bit more for the best 4.80 2.06
Risk averseness (Huang et al., 2004; Donthu and Garcia, 1999)
RA1 When I buy something, I prefer not taking risks 5.44 1.83
RA2 I like to be sure the product is a good one before buying it 6.38 0.97
RA3 I don’t like to feel uncertainty when I buy something. 6.38 1.08
Attitude toward counterfeited products (Huang et al., 2004)
AT1 Considering price, I prefer gray market goods 3.13 2.26
AT2 I like shopping for gray market goods 2.15 1.60
AT3 Buying gray market goods generally benefits the consumer 2.76 1.98
AT4 There’s nothing wrong with purchasing gray market goods. 2.83 2.07
AT5 Generally speaking, buying gray market goods is a better choice 2.27 1.67
Subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991)
SN1 My relatives and friends approve my decision to buy counterfeited products 3.47 2.10
SN2 My relatives and friends think that I should buy counterfeited products 2.95 2.04
Behavioral intentions (Zeithaml et al., 1996)
Considering today, what are the chances that you. . .
BI1 . . .think about a counterfeited product as a choice when buying something 2.70 1.87
BI2 . . .buy a counterfeited product 2.68 1.92
BI3 ...recommend to friends and relatives that they buy a counterfeited product 2.20 1.68
BI4 . . .say favorable things about counterfeited products 2.19 1.61
Perceived risk (Dowling and Staelin, 1994)
PR1 The risk that I take when I buy a counterfeited product is high 5.93 1.65
PR2 There is high probability that the product doesn’t work 6.14 1.42
PR2 Spending money with a counterfeited product might be a bad decision 6.03 1.49
Integrity (Ang et al., 2001)
INT1 I consider honesty as an important quality for one’s character 6.86 0.40
INT2 I consider very important that people be polite 6.86 0.41
INT3 I admire responsible people 6.88 0.35
INT4 I like people that have self-control 6.47 1.06
Personal gratification (Ang et al., 2001)
PG I always attempt to have a sense of accomplishment 6.60 0.82

Another measure of reliability was also considered, namely
the composite reliability. Results here were similar to those
ones presented above, with lower values in the same scales of
risk averseness (0.48). In all other scales the lower value
found was 0.76, which is superior to the minimum of 0.70
suggested in the literature (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). This
pattern of low values for the risk averseness scale is similar to
the results presented by Huang et al. (2004), although they
found values greater than the ones present here.
The regression weights found for each item when running
each constructs as a separate model were used as indication of
Convergent Validity. This analysis, together with the reliability
results presented above, was used to purify the constructs’
measures. Items with regression weights (i.e. lambdas) lower
than 0.50 were excluded from the scale and the Cronbach’s
alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted
(AVE) were recalculated (see Table V). In conjunction with
the value of the lambdas, it was also checked its significance
and the variance of the item explained by the construct (i.e.
squared multiple correlation, SMC).
Some constructs presented values of AVE below the lower
bound of 0.50 suggested in the literature (e.g. Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), although an improvement was reached after
excluding the items with lambdas , 0.50. These constructs
include: risk averseness (AVE ¼ 0:32), similar to what was
found by Huang et al. (2004), when AVE ¼ 0:39, and attitude
(AVE ¼ 0:45).
Discriminant Validity was performed by comparing the
shared variance between each pair of construct with the
average variance extracted in each one of the pair (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Absolute values of correlation among
constructs ranges from 0.025 (risk averseness-behavioral
intentions) to 0.883 (attitude-behavioral intentions). Only in
this case, the squared correlation (78 percent), indicating the
shared variance, was higher then the AVE in attitude (45
percent) and in behavioral intentions (61 percent), then

40
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits Journal of Consumer Marketing
Celso Augusto de Matos et al. Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47

Table II Correlations between items

PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 RA1 RA2 RA3 DU AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4 AT5 SN1
PQ1 1.00
PQ2 0.59 * * 1.00
PQ3 0.40 * * 0.36 * * 1.00
RA1 0.09 0.08 0.14 * * 1.00
RA2 0.02 0.06 0.12 * * 0.19 * * 1.00
RA3 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.18 * * 0.30 * * 1.00
DU 2 0.11 * 20.12 * 20.07 2 0.09 20.04 20.5 1.00
AT1 0.02 20.07 20.08 2 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.47 * * 1.00
AT2 0.02 0.05 20.09 2 0.10 20.04 20.01 0.36 * * 0.47 * * 1.00
AT3 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 20.09 0.00 0.27 * * 0.40 * * 0.48 * * 1.00
AT4 2 0.15 * * 20.13 * * 20.11 * 2 0.19 * * 20.07 20.22 * * 0.18 * * 0.14 * * 0.25 * * 0.12 * 1.00
AT5 0.02 0.01 20.12 * 2 0.13 * 20.09 20.16 * * 0.24 * * 0.36 * * 0.46 * * 0.52 * * 0.28 * * 1.00
SN1 2 0.13 * 20.10 20.13 * 2 0.04 0.02 20.06 0.25 * * 0.29 * * 0.20 * * 0.17 * * 0.19 * * 0.34 * * 1.00
SN2 2 0.07 20.07 20.13 * 0.04 20.02 0.03 0.16 * * 0.22 * * 0.18 * * 0.15 * * 0.18 * * 0.26 * * 0.59 * *
B11 0.02 20.03 20.01 0.01 20.03 0.03 0.38 * * 0.48 * * 0.47 * * 0.44 * * 0.17 * * 0.42 * * 0.35 * *
B12 0.06 0.05 20.02 2 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.42 * * 0.54 * * 0.49 * * 0.43 * * 0.18 * * 0.41 * * 0.32 * *
B13 2 0.02 20.06 20.14 * * 2 0.14 * * 20.09 20.06 0.35 * * 0.44 * * 0.51 * * 0.37 * * 0.24 * * 0.48 * * 0.26 * *
B14 0.05 0.01 20.13 * 2 0.17 * * 20.05 20.06 0.35 * * 0.47 * * 0.54 * * 0.45 * * 0.23 * * 0.55 * * 0.29 * *
PR1 0.00 20.01 0.11 * 0.14 * * 0.06 0.02 0.06 20.14 * * 20.20 * * 2 0.14 * * 2 0.15 * * 20.19 * * 2 0.06
PR2 0.07 20.01 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.03 2 0.10 * 20.19 * * 20.31 * * 2 0.26 * * 2 0.19 * * 20.34 * * 2 0.14 * *
PR3 0.02 20.01 0.04 0.08 20.02 0.05 2 0.20 * * 20.32 * * 20.34 * * 2 0.33 * * 2 0.16 * * 20.41 * * 2 0.24 * *
PG 0.00 0.03 0.13 * * 0.08 0.08 0.16 * * 2 0.04 0.07 20.04 0.02 2 0.04 20.12 * 0.01
INT1 2 0.03 20.04 0.09 0.18 * * 0.09 0.17 * * 2 0.14 * * 20.09 20.17 * * 2 0.08 2 0.09 20.29 * * 2 0.02
INT2 0.00 20.02 0.12 * 0.27 * * 0.13 * 0.14 * * 2 0.06 20.04 20.18 * * 2 0.11 * 2 0.11 * 20.28 * * 0.00
INT3 2 0.02 20.03 0.13 * 0.23 * * 0.18 * * 0.19 * * 2 0.05 20.05 20.16 * * 2 0.18 * * 2 0.10 * 20.32 * * 2 0.03
INT4 0.08 20.02 0.10 * 0.03 0.16 * * 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 2 0.03 2 0.03 20.09 2 0.13 * *
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); * * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table III Correlations between items

SN2 B11 B12 B13 B14 PR1 PR2 PR3 PG INT1 INT2 INT3 INT4
PQ1
PQ2
PQ3
RA1
RA2
RA3
DU
AT1
AT2
AT3
AT4
AT5
SN1
SN2 1.00
B11 0.29 * * 1.00
B12 0.23 * * 0.76 * * 1.00
B13 0.31 * * 0.48 * * 0.60 * * 1.00
B14 0.29 * * 0.52 * * 0.61 * * 0.66 * * 1.00
PR1 20.04 20.12 * 20.19 * * 20.22 * * 20.25 * * 1.00
PR2 20.13 * 20.34 * * 20.32 * * 20.33 * * 20.32 * * 20.43 * * 1.00
PR3 20.17 * * 20.40 * * 20.44 * * 20.40 * * 20.41 * * 20.32 * * 2 0.62 * * 1.00
PG 20.02 0.04 0.00 20.10 * 20.05 0.05 0.16 * * 0.12 * 1.00
INT1 20.09 0.01 20.06 20.26 * * 20.21 * * 0.09 0.13 * 0.09 0.33 * * 1.00
INT2 20.08 0.00 20.07 20.21 * * 20.26 * * 0.17 * * 0.11 * 0.11 * 0.23 * * 0.67 * * 1.00
INT3 20.11 * 20.01 20.07 20.19 * * 20.25 * * 0.17 * * 0.13 * * 0.13 * * 0.24 * * 0.69 * * 0.74 * * 1.00
INT4 0.00 20.08 20.08 0.02 20.04 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.14 * * 0.20 * * 0.20 * * 1.00
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); * * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

41
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits Journal of Consumer Marketing
Celso Augusto de Matos et al. Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47

Table IV Dimensionality test by exploratory factor analysis

Factors
Items Attitude/behavioral intentions Integrity Price-quality relation Perceived risk Subjective norm Risk aversion
BI2 0.827 0.077 0.035 20.025 2 0.017 2 0.089
BI1 0.722 0.158 0.013 20.039 2 0.103 2 0.051
BI4 0.714 20.129 0.008 20.026 2 0.040 0.051
AT1 0.680 0.042 2 0.059 0.068 2 0.026 2 0.044
AT2 0.673 20.056 0.005 20.050 0.063 0.021
BI3 0.644 20.110 2 0.070 20.047 2 0.052 0.036
AT3 0.596 20.015 0.079 20.039 0.043 0.035
AT5 0.436 20.167 0.062 20.123 2 0.169 0.180
INT2 2 0.009 0.863 0.021 0.008 2 0.013 0.031
INT3 0.022 0.850 2 0.027 0.031 0.038 2 0.037
INT1 2 0.001 0.793 2 0.025 20.004 0.039 0.021
PQ1 0.108 20.055 0.796 0.067 0.017 0.037
PQ2 2 0.037 20.059 0.755 20.067 2 0.026 0.039
PQ3 2 0.017 0.087 0.490 0.015 0.041 2 0.066
PR2 0.100 20.049 0.001 0.986 0.019 0.049
PR3 2 0.204 20.044 2 0.025 0.586 0.063 0.019
PR1 2 0.023 0.071 0.017 0.453 2 0.059 2 0.023
SN1 0.031 0.052 2 0.020 0.001 2 0.788 0.058
SN2 0.004 20.098 2 0.013 0.021 2 0.733 2 0.066
RA3 0.112 20.043 2 0.060 0.008 0.051 2 0.679
RA2 2 0.023 0.010 0.004 20.034 2 0.046 2 0.427
RA1 2 0.057 0.152 0.103 0.005 2 0.077 2 0.293
AT4 0.123 0.036 2 0.110 20.097 2 0.118 0.291
Variance explained 20.1 9.3 6.3 3.9 2.8 2.4
Notes: Total variance explained: 50.54%; item “int4” was excluded because it load alone as a different factor; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy ¼ 0:833; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: x2 ¼ 3:351; df ¼ 253; p , 0.000

failing to suggest discriminant validity (see results in Table
VI). Using another criteria (Bagozzi and Philips, 1982) and
constraining this correlation to unity produced a significant
change in the goodness-of-fit statistic (Dx2 ¼ 25:389; df ¼ 1;
p , 0.000). We used as additional evidence of discriminant
validity between these constructs further evidence obtained
when testing the full model (i.e. significant predictors of
attitude were not significant predictors of behavioral
intentions), which will be presented ahead.
Estimation of model parameters
After the process of scale refinement presented above, the
conceptual model with the remaining indicators (see Figure 1)
was submitted to test. Results using both the maximum-
likelihood (ML) method and the generalized least squares
(GLS) show that the fit indexes approximate acceptable levels
using ML (i.e. GFI ¼ 0:898; AGFI ¼ 0:854; NFI ¼ 0:874;
CFI ¼ 0:917; PACFI ¼ 0:703; RMSEA ¼ 0:064) and using
GLS (i.e. GFI ¼ 0:928; AGFI ¼ 0:897; NFI ¼ 0:666;
CFI ¼ 0:806; PACFI ¼ 0:622; RMSEA ¼ 0:045),
considering the measurement literature (e.g., Byrne, 2001).
In both methods, however, chi-square parameter was
significant ( p , 0.000). Since chi-square is sensitive to
sample size, relative chi-square (x2/df) is commonly suggested
in the measurement literature. Using ML method, a value of
2.575 was found for the relative chi-square, which is in the
acceptable level of 2 or 3 to 1 (Arbuckle, 1997).
Because similar results were also found for the coefficients
when using both ML and GLS, only those produced by the
ML, the most frequently used method (Thompson, 2002), are
presented (see Table VII).
Considering the antecedents of attitudes, significant paths
were found for perceived risk ( p , 0.000), integrity ( p ,
0.002), personal gratification ( p , 0.015), subjective norm ( p
, 0.000) and the dummy ( p , 0.000), supporting H3, H4,
H5, H6, H7A respectively. Only risk averseness was a non-
significant antecedent ( p , 0.933), failing to support H2.
Contrary to expectations, however, results showed a positive
relationship between price-quality and attitude ( p , 0.009),
failing to support H1.
Results revealed also that attitude toward counterfeits is
most significantly affected by the following constructs:
perceived risk (b ¼ 20:487); dummy “have bought a
counterfeit before or not” (b ¼ 0:347), subjective norm
(b ¼ 0:245), integrity (b ¼ 0:157), price-quality inference
(b ¼ 0:149) and personal gratification (b ¼ 0:109). In this
order, these variables are the most important for explaining
consumer attitude toward counterfeited products.
When assessing the variables influencing behavioral
intentions, it was found that attitude was significant ( p ,
0.000; b ¼ 0:891), supporting H8; but the dummy “have
bought a counterfeit before or not” was not ( p , 0.493;
b ¼ 0:033), not supporting H7B. This result is interesting
because it shows a mediating effect of attitude in the
relationship between the dummy, a proxy of consumer
previous experience with counterfeits, and intentions to buy a
counterfeit. In other words, experience influences attitudes,
which in turn influences behavior.

42
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits Journal of Consumer Marketing
Celso Augusto de Matos et al. Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47

Table V Summary of constructs’ measures

Scale
Cronbach’s alpha (a)
Composite reliability (CR) Standardized Squared multiple
Average variance extracted (AVE) Items regression weights t p correlations (SMC)
Price-quality relation pq1 0.810 0.657
a 5 0:71; CR 5 0:72; AVE 5 0:48 pq2 0.726 8.162 0.000 0.527
a
a 5 0:74; CR 5 0:76; AVE 5 0:62 pq3 * 0.497 7.519 0.000 0.247
Attitude toward counterfeit at1 0.583 0.340
a 5 0:70; CR 5 0:74 AVE 5 0:38 at2 0.712 9.332 0.000 0.507
a
a 5 0:75; CR 5 0:76; AVE 5 0:45 at3 0.692 9.215 0.000 0.478
at4 * 0.301 4.911 0.000 0.091
at5 0.686 9.179 0.000 0.471
Behavioral intentions bi1 0.803 0.644
a 5 0:85; CR 5 0:86; AVE 5 0:61 bi2 0.911 18.168 0.000 0.830
bi3 0.676 13.711 0.000 0.457
bi4 0.700 14.302 0.000 0.490
Perceived risk pr1 * 0.471 0.222
a 5 0:71; CR 5 0:74; AVE 5 0:51 pr2 0.918 6.876 0.000 0.843
a
a 5 0:76; CR 5 0:77; AVE 5 0:63 pr3 0.676 8.282 0.000 0.458
Integrity int1 0.789 0.622
a 5 0:53; CR 5 0:80; AVE 5 0:54 int2 0.849 17.237 0.000 0.721
a
a 5 0:87; CR 5 0:88; AVE 5 0:70 int3 0.877 17.497 0.000 0.770
int4 * 0.221 4.094 0.000 0.049
Subjective norm sn1 0.680
a 5 0:74; CR 5 0:75; AVE 5 0:60 sn2 0.860 7.58 0.000 0.463
Risk averseness ra1 * 0.339 0.115
a 5 0:39; CR 5 0:48; AVE 5 0:24 ra2 0.558 3.358 0.001 0.311
a
a 5 0:46; CR 5 0:48; AVE 5 0:32 ra3 0.540 3.432 0.001 0.292
Notes: * Excluded due to low weights (, 0.5); a values for the purified scale; Fit statistics after purification process (measurement model):
chi
square ¼ 403:50; df ¼ 155; p , 0.000; GFI ¼ 0:901; AGFI ¼ 0:853; CFI ¼ 0:919; RMSEA ¼ 0:065

In order to test which of the exogenous construct from
Figure 1 would have a significant influence on behavioral
intentions, an alternative model was also tested, in which
constructs are modeled to influence both attitudes and
behavioral intentions. As a result, it was found that most
variables significantly affect attitudes but not behavioral
intentions (i.e. price-quality inference, subjective norm,
perceived risk, integrity, dummy and personal gratification),
and only one did not affect either of them (i.e. risk
averseness). This finding can be interpreted as an indication
of parsimony in the original conceptualized model and it also
reinforces the mediating role of attitudes in the relationship
between the key reviewed antecedents and the behavioral
intentions. It is also an interesting result because, considering
the high amount of shared variance between attitudes and
behavioral intentions, one would expect that constructs with a
significant effect on attitudes would also have a significant
effect on behavioral intentions. This not being the case
suggests the discriminant validity between attitudes and
behavioral intentions.
When comparing consumers who have bought a counterfeit
with those who affirmed that have never bought a counterfeit,
it was found that the former have more favorable attitudes
(M havebought ¼ 0:28, M haveneverbought ¼ 20:66, p , 0.000) and
behavioral intentions (M havebought ¼ 0:29,
M haveneverbought ¼ 20:68, p , 0.000), tend to disagree with
the notion that “high price means high quality”
(M havebought ¼ 20:08, M haveneverbought ¼ 0:20, p , 0.012),
agree more on the question that their friends and relatives
approve their decision to buy counterfeits (M havebought ¼ 0:15,
M haveneverbought ¼ 20:35, p , 0.000), perceive less risk in the
counterfeit (M havebought ¼ 20:11, M haveneverbought ¼ 0:26, p ,
0.001) and have lower scores on integrity
(M havebought ¼ 20:06, M haveneverbought ¼ 0:14, p , 0.065).
These results support H7.
Discussion
Although gray market has grown worldwide, research from a
demand perspective remains scarce as emphasized by Huang
et al. (2004). In order to fill this void, this paper aimed to
investigate the key antecedents of consumer attitudes toward
counterfeits, as well as the influence of this attitude on the
behavioral intentions toward these products. Based on recent
marketing literature, this article integrates two conceptual
models, one proposed and tested by Huang et al. (2004), who
considered price-consciousness, price-quality inference and
risk averseness as antecedents of consumer attitudes, and the

43
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits Journal of Consumer Marketing
Celso Augusto de Matos et al. Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47

Table VI Discriminant validity by squared correlations and AVE are similar in content when comparing these two models:
price-consciousness and value consciousness, meaning the
PQ RA SN PR IN AT BI concern for paying lower prices, subject to some quality
Price-quality (PQ) 0.624 constraint (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). In their study, Ang et al.
Risk aversion (RA) 0.011 0.322 (2001) found that consumers who were more value conscious
Subjective norm (SN) 0.023 0.002 0.601 had a more favorable attitude towards piracy than less value
Perceived risk (PR) 0.002 0.004 0.084 0.63 conscious consumers. On the other hand, in Huang et al.
(2004)’s study, the price-consciousness construct was not
Integrity (IN) 0.001 0.102 0.003 0.029 0.705
significant. In the present research, this construct was not
Attitude (AT) 0.003 0.012 0.188 0.361 0.088 0.447
included. It remains, however, as an interesting relationship to
Behavioral intentions (BI) 0.002 0.001 0.216 0.356 0.030 0.780 0.611
be tested in future research. In the sense of combination of
Notes: Numbers in italic are the AVE for the construct; for scales with only factors from both models, subjective norm was considered as
two items (e.g. SN); the loadings used for computing AVE were those representing the social influence. The authors also included a
obtained when modeling all constructs correlated with each other new construct in the model in order to better explain the risk
(measurement model) component, which was the risk consumers perceive when they
buy a counterfeit. This variable was not considered in either
of the two models presented above. Perceived risk is more
Table VII Parameter estimation specific than risk averseness because the former deals with
how much risk consumer perceive when s/he buys a
counterfeit while the latter indicates only the consumer
Standardized Critical propensity to take risks overall.
Regression Standard weights ratios Although some constructs had a relative small average
Relations weights errors (b) (t) p variance extracted (e.g., risk averseness) and some of the fit
AT ˆ PQ 0.115 0.044 0.149 2.604 0.009 indexes obtained in the model only approximate the desired
AT ˆ RA 0.013 0.15 0.005 0.084 0.933 level (e.g. GFI should be higher than 0.9), 82.5 percent of the
AT ˆ SN 0.2 0.049 0.245 4.114 0.000 variance in the behavioral intentions and 64 percent of the
variance in the attitudes could be explained by the variables in
AT ˆ PR 2 0.582 0.08 2 0.487 27.262 0.000
the model (i.e. considering Squared Multiple Correlations,
AT ˆ IN 2 0.733 0.239 2 0.157 23.067 0.002
SMC for these constructs). These values are rather
AT ˆ DU 1.126 0.168 0.347 6.722 0.000
considerable, especially considering previous research (e.g.,
AT ˆ PG 0.208 0.085 0.109 2.435 0.015
in the study by Ang et al., 2001, adjusted R2 was equal to 0.44
BI ˆ AT 0.857 0.079 0.891 10.812 0.000 for the model predicting purchase intentions).
BI ˆ DU 0.103 0.15 0.033 0.685 0.493 Results from this extended model revealed that perceived
pq2 ˆ PQ 0.667 0.169 0.643 3.937 0.000 risk was the most important variable to predict consumer
pq1 ˆ PQ 1 0.915 attitude toward counterfeits, followed by the fact that he/she
ra3 ˆ RA 1 0.648 have bought a counterfeit before or not, subjective norm,
ra2 ˆ RA 0.673 0.219 0.465 3.073 0.002 integrity, price-quality inference and personal gratification.
sn2 ˆ SN 0.752 0.102 0.672 7.372 0.000 Consumers who perceived more risk in the counterfeits had
sn1 ˆ SN 1 0.871 unfavorable attitudes toward them, in line with previous
pr3 ˆ PR 1 0.858 research dealing with perceived risk (e.g. Dowling and Staelin,
pr2 ˆ PR 0.803 0.076 0.724 10.606 0.000 1994). Those consumers who had already bought a
int2 ˆ IN 0.985 0.056 0.843 17.444 0.000 counterfeit had favorable attitude toward it. Those
int1 ˆ IN 1 0.798 consumers whose relative and friends approve their decision
int3 ˆ IN 0.96 0.054 0.876 17.863 0.000 to buy counterfeits have more favorable attitudes, a result
at1 ˆ AT 1 0.656 convergent with the predictions of the Theory of Planned
at2 ˆ AT 0.741 0.064 0.694 11.558 0.000 Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Consumers who considered
at3 ˆ AT 0.825 0.078 0.627 10.611 0.000 important values as honesty, politeness and responsibility
at5 ˆ AT 0.743 0.067 0.664 11.133 0.000 tended to have a negative attitude toward counterfeits, in
bi1 ˆ BI 1 0.773 accordance with previous research (e.g. Ang et al., 2001,
bi2 ˆ BI 1.119 0.065 0.844 17.138 0.000 Cordell et al., 1996), but those who seek to have a sense of
bi3 ˆ BI 0.837 0.057 0.731 14.574 0.000
accomplishment have positive attitudes, different from Ang
et al.’s study, which found a positive but non significant effect.
bi4 ˆ BI 0.847 0.055 0.772 15.511 0.000
Finally, those consumers who considered the price as an
Notes: SMC: attitude ¼ 0:642; behavioral intentions ¼ 0:825 indication of quality had more favorable attitudes toward
counterfeits, which is contrary to the results found by Huang
et al. (2004) and the prediction made in H1. In this case of the
other proposed by Ang et al. (2001), who considered social price-quality inference, it was hypothesized that consumers
factors (i.e. informative susceptibility and normative considering “high price, high quality” and “low price, low
susceptibility) and personality factors (i.e. value quality” would have unfavorable attitudes toward counterfeits
consciousness, integrity and personal gratification) as because of its inferior price. Results suggested that this was
antecedents of consumer attitudes. not the case, or at least that consumers who are used to buy
The study presented here considered as antecedents a counterfeits may apply this rule to the gray market in itself
combination of these factors presented above. Two constructs (i.e. those counterfeits of inferior price are perceived as low

44
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
quality and those ones of higher prices as higher quality). This
can be an important alternative explanation especially if one
considers that 70 percent of the respondents in this study had
already bought a counterfeit.
Only the construct risk averseness did not have a significant
influence on attitudes, which is different from the result
presented by Huang et al. (2004). This finding is interesting if
one considers that perceived risk was the most important
predictor. A possible explanation is the difference in meaning
between them and also the easiness with each respondents
probably related the perceived risk items to the context of the
research, maybe having difficult to do so in the risk averseness
items. This difference, however, should be considered in
future investigations.
Because previous research reviewed did not mention the
direct effect of the antecedents of attitudes on purchase/
behavioral intentions, one important contribution of this paper
is also to show that the significant predictors of attitudes
presented above do not have a direct influence on consumer’s
behavioral intentions, even though attitudes and behavioral
intentions are highly correlated in this study. This is an
evidence of the mediator role of attitude: the key constructs
affect attitudes, which in turn affect behavioral intentions.
The relative importance of these predictors can also
contribute to the policy makers or managers of international
brands who should use the perceived risk as the main appeal
in the messages intended to discourage consumption of
counterfeits. Another important point is that those consumers
who have bought a counterfeit have more favorable attitudes
when compared to those who have not. This is a real threat
for the original brands, because once consumers experiment
the counterfeit, they tend to have a favorable attitude and then
have a positive behavioral intentions. The results suggested,
however, that this experience does not have a direct effect on
behavioral intentions. In this way, it is possible to influence
attitudes consumers have toward counterfeits through other
variables, for example, by influencing the (negative) perceived
social acceptance consumer will have when buying a
counterfeit. This would be the practical implication of the
significant effect of the construct subjective norm. Another
alternative could be trying to influence consumer personality,
such as integrity, although this one is more difficult to change,
encouraging consumers to consider values as responsibility
and honesty in their life. It was found that consumers who
attempt to have a sense of accomplishment had more
favorable attitudes toward counterfeits. These consumers
may consume counterfeits as an opportunity to experiment a
product innovation, which can be more salient for electronic
products. This could be even more significant for low-income
consumers, which can be investigated in future research.
In terms of demographic variables, results are convergent
with previous research when finding that consumers of
counterfeits have more favorable attitudes and behavioral
intentions (Ang et al., 2001). This might be a problem for
those trying to reduce the counterfeit consumption, because if
these consumers are satisfied with the performance of the
pirated product, there will be more resistance for attitude
change. It was also found that these consumers:
.
do not use price as a reference of quality;
.
consider that the reference groups approve their decision
to buy counterfeits, which can be viewed as a strategy to
reduce cognitive dissonance; and
.
are not afraid that the counterfeit will not work properly.
45
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
Conclusions and suggestions
This research contributes to the existing literature by
extending and testing the key antecedents of the consumer
attitudes toward counterfeits. It also identifies the relative
importance of each antecedent in predicting attitudes. It is
argued that these attitudes act as mediator in the relation
between the constructs considered and the behavioral
intentions. Another contribution is related to the practical
implications of this paper, when it considers the strategies
managers can use for dealing with the problem of consumers
loosing loyalty in the brands and turning into counterfeits.
As suggestions for future research, one could test the model
presented here in different product categories (e.g. CDs,
DVDs, clothes, toys etc) and check for possible differences. It
is also recommended that new important variables be
included in the model, which can be done by searching for
moderators and boundary conditions. This might be the case
of consumer involvement with the product, for instance. It
should be expected that when consumers are more involved
with the product, he/she should be more worried about the
buying decision and have a higher risk aversion.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Albers-Miller, N.D. (1999), “Consumer misbehavior: why
people buy illicit goods”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 273-87.
Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K.
(2001), “Spot the difference: consumer responses towards
counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 219-35.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1997), AMOS User’s Guide: Version 3.6, SPSS,
Chicago, IL.
Bagozzi, R. and Philips, L.W. (1982), “Representing and
testing organizational theories: a holistic construal”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 459-90.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gürhan-Canli, Z. and Priester, J.R. (2002), The
Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989),
“Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 473-81.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling With
AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bloch, P.H., Bush, R.F. and Campbell, L. (1993),
“Consumer ‘Accomplices’ in product counterfeiting;
a demand side investigation”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 27-36.
Bonoma, T.V. and Johnston, W.J. (1979), “Decision making
under uncertainty: a direct measurement approach”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 177-91.
Chapman, J. and Wahlers, A. (1999), “revision and empirical
test of the extended price-perceived quality model”, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 53-64.
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
Cespedes, F.V., Corey, E.R. and Rangan, V.K. (1988), “Gray
markets: causes and cures”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 75-83.
Chaudhry, P., Cordell, V. and Zimmerman, A. (2005),
“Modeling anti-counterfeiting strategies in response to
protecting intellectual property rights in a global
environment”, Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Cordell, V., Wongtada, N. and Kieschnick, R.L. Jr (1996),
“Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness
attitudes and product traits as determinants”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The Internet shopper”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 52-8.
Dowling, G.R. and Staelin, R. (1994), “A model of perceived
risk and intended risk-handling activity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 119-34.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of
Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “Un updated
paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, pp. 186-92.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, W. and Black, W.C.
(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Havlena, W.J. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1991), “On the
measurement of perceived consumer risk”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 927-39.
Huang, J.H., Lee, B.C.Y. and Ho, S.H. (2004), “Consumer
attitude toward gray market goods”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 598-614.
International Anticounterfeiting Coalition (2005), “Facts on
fakes”, available at: www.iacc.org/Facts.html (accessed
November 30, 2005).
International Intellectual Property Institute (2003),
“Counterfeit goods and the public’s health and safety”,
available at: www.iacc.org/IIPI.pdf (accessed November 30,
2005).
Kim, M.S. and Hunter, J.E. (1993), “Relationships among
attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: a meta-
analysis of past research, Part 2”, Communication Research,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 331-64.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. and Netemeyer, R.G.
(1993), “Price perceptions and consumer shopping
behavior: a field study”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 234-45.
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1997), Consumer Behavior,
8th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tellis, G.J. and Gaeth, G.J. (1990), “Best value, price-
seeking, and price aversion: the impact of information and
learning on consumer choices”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54, April, pp. 34-45.
Thompson, B. (2002), “Ten commandments of structural
equation modeling”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R.
(Eds), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate
Statistics, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
46
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1996),
“The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-43.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Karande, K.W. (1990), “Cultural and
gender differences in risk-taking behavior among American
and Spanish decision markers”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 131 No. 5, pp. 741-2.
Further reading
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (1995),
Consumer Behavior, The Dryden Press, Orlando, FL.
Hubbard, R. and Armstrong, J.S. (1994), “Replications and
Extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite
contrary”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 11, pp. 233-48.
About the authors
Celso Augusto de Matos is a marketing doctoral candidate at
the School of Management at the Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil (PPGA-EA-UFRGS). His research
interests are in the areas of attitude formation and change,
consumer behavior in services, and marketing research. His
research has been published in the International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Brazilian Administration Review, ACR
conference and in a number of Brazilian journals and
proceedings. He is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: celsomatos@yahoo.com.br
Cristiana Trindade Ituassu holds a master’s degree from the
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil (CEPEAD-
UFMG). Her research interests are in the areas of country
image, consumer behavior, and advertising. Her research has
been published in a number of Brazilian proceedings.
Dr Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi is a professor at the School
of Management at the Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil (PPGA-EA-UFRGS). His research interests are in
the areas of strategic marketing, consumer behavior, and
marketing theory. His research has been published in the
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Brazilian
Administration Review, ACR conference and in a number of
Brazilian journals and proceedings.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article in toto to take
advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research
undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material
present.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that the sale of
counterfeit goods is a growing cause for concern. Around 5
percent of products worldwide are believed to be fake, while
the problem costs the US economy over $200 billion every
year. Despite this level of concern, scant research exists into
the purchasing of pirated goods – particularly from a
consumer perspective.
Influential factors
Previous studies have, however, identified several factors that
may influence consumer intention towards counterfeit
 Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits
Celso Augusto de Matos et al.
products. The factors operate at individual and interpersonal
level and include:
. Price-quality correlation. A belief that many consumers
equate product quality from its price and the level of
guarantee offered. Specifically, many theorists believe that
the typically lower cost of pirated goods leads the
consumer to assume lower quality also.
.
Risk aversion and perceived risk. Research has proven that
some consumers possess a personality trait making them
averse to risk taking and has shown this trait to be a
significant factor in whether or not the consumer will
make purchases deemed risky. Buying online is one
example that many people regard as involving risk. Some
consumers perceive more specific risks that can relate not
only to price and quality but also to safety, finance,
performance, social or psychological.
.
Integrity. The ethical standards of the consumer.
.
Subjective norm. How pressure from relatives and friends
can lead individuals to adopt certain attitudes and
behaviors.
.
Previous experience. Whether or not the consumer has
previously bought pirated goods.
.
Personal fulfillment. How individuals perceive themselves.
Earlier studies have provided conflicting evidence in
regard to this factor. Some researchers found little
evidence of links between personal fulfillment and
counterfeit goods, while others discovered that those
buying such products regarded themselves as less
confident, being lower achievers, having less money and
being of inferior standing than non-buyers.
.
Behavioral intentions. Other studies have indicated strong
links between attitude and intention, and that intention is
a reliable predictor of actual behavior.
Two existing conceptual models each considered the impact
of some of the above factors. De Matos et al. extend this work
by combining the models and investigating a range of
hypotheses relating to all the factors.
Survey and findings
The authors conducted a survey in areas of two large Brazilian
cities where counterfeit goods were on sale. Interviews were
carried out in the streets and the sample obtained included
respondents with different age, gender, income and education
profiles. In response to a question about previous purchases,
70 percent of the 400 surveyed admitted they had already
bought fake goods. For other questions, respondents
answered on a scale ranging from completely agree to
completely disagree – apart from behavioral intentions, where
answers ranged from very likely to very unlikely. The
responses indicated that no real importance could be
attached to gender, age, income level or education.
Contrary to expectation, the study did not provide
sufficient evidence to imply that consumers who firmly
believe in the price-quality link will have a more negative
attitude towards counterfeit products. Indeed, many
participants who considered that quality is indicated by
price revealed more rather than less favorable attitudes. The
authors speculate that consumers might in fact apply the
price-quality inference within the counterfeit market itself –
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
47
View publication stats
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 24 · Number 1 · 2007 · 36 –47
particularly given the high number of respondents who had
previously bought such products.
The assumption that higher levels of risk aversion would
have a similar effect was also unproven. De Matos et al.
express particular surprise at the latter findings given that
perceived risk was discovered to be the most influential of all
factors considered. Prior purchase was next, followed by
subjective norms, integrity, price-quality inference and
personal gratification. Importantly, evidence suggests that
these factors influence consumer attitude towards pirated
goods but do not directly influence purchase intention. The
authors note the complexity of this issue given that attitude
was found to influence intention.
Most other findings were as anticipated and concurred with
previous studies. For instance, consumers who valued honesty
and responsibility generally display a negative attitude towards
counterfeits. Likewise, there was also considerable support for
the theory that peer approval or disapproval affects consumer
attitude.
The results of the survey enabled de Matos et al. to build a
profile of a consumer most likely to buy fake goods. Such a
consumer would probably have a more favorable attitude and
purchase intention towards counterfeits, tend to disagree with
the notion that higher price means better quality, perceive less
risk, places lower value on integrity. In the survey itself, these
respondents also revealed higher levels of agreement in
relation to the question about peer approval of their
purchases.
Implications and suggestions for future research
The authors believe that the study can aid marketers in the
battle to dissuade consumers from purchasing counterfeit
products. Given that perceived risk was most influential, they
suggest that the most effective results may be possible if this
factor is at the core of advertising campaigns. However, if the
consumer has previously bought pirated goods the challenge
becomes more difficult and is compounded further when he
or she is satisfied with these purchases. In this instance, de
Matos et al. propose that trying to influence the social
acceptance factor may be the best tactic to adopt. Attempting
to influence integrity is another option, although the authors
acknowledge the difficulties inherent in persuading
individuals to reflect on the values they hold.
In view of the inconclusiveness, further investigation of the
price-quality link could prove fruitful, as might additional
exploration into the relationship between risk averseness and
perceived risk. The authors also point out that the survey
focused on general rather than specific counterfeit products
and suggest that consideration of different product categories
may be informative. For example, they speculate that lower
income consumers who value personal accomplishment may
experience innovation through the purchase of counterfeit
electrical or other hi-tech products. Inclusion of other
variables such as consumer involvement with the product
may likewise prove to be significant.
(A précis of the article “Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits:
a review and extension”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants
for Emerald.)