does behavioural intention influence purchase … · 2017. 5. 12. · consumer intention has high...

Journal of Humanities, Language, Culture and Business (HLCB) Vol. 1: no. 1 (2017) page 1–12 | icohlcb.com | eISSN : 01268147 |

1

DOES BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION INFLUENCE

PURCHASE BEHAVIOUR OF COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS:

A LOOK AT MALAYSIAN CONSUMERS

Nor Azila Mohd Noor

[email protected]

Resident Faculty, Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, Universiti Utara

Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Tel: +6049287108

Azli Muhammad

[email protected]

Lecturer, Polytechnic Seberang Prai, 13500 Seberang Prai, Penang, Tel: +604-5383322

Abdullah Ghani

[email protected]

College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Awanis Ku Ishak

[email protected]

College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Abstract

Counterfeit products are defined as identical copies of authentic products and account for at

least five percent of the world’s trade. Counterfeit products have been found to be a serious

problem around the world. It is a lame issues from a long time ago that are never resolved.

Various studies were carried out to find the underlying reasons why consumer purchase

counterfeits product. This paper sets out to examine to what extend does behavioural

intention influences consumers to purchase counterfeit products. An intercept survey

approach involved 390 respondents was conducted at hot-spot areas selling counterfeit

products in Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor Baharu. A self-administered questionnaire

was designed using established scales. A variety of statistical techniques were used to

analyze the data. Analyses conducted reveals that consumer intention explains large percent

of the variation in consumer purchase behavior of counterfeit products. This indicates that

consumer intention has high explanatory power to predict consumer behavior of purchasing

counterfeit products. The study provides an understanding of Malaysian consumers’

behavioral intention and purchase behaviour of counterfeit products.

Keywords: counterfeit products, consumer purchase behaviour, behavioural intention

2017 JHLCB

mailto:[email protected]


2

Introduction

Undeniably, counterfeiting, or piracy, is a big business. Counterfeit products are defined as

identical copies of authentic products and account for at least five percent of the world’s trade

(Carpenter & Lear, 2011). Over the years, counterfeiting products have embellished the

market alongside with original brands.

In fact, a recent study by Chaudary, Ahmed, Gill and Rizwan (2014) acknowledged the

alarming advent of worldwide economic phenomenon of counterfeiting. Counterfeit products

have been found to be a serious problem around the world in recent days (Hendriana et al.,

2013). Counterfeiting is such a problem that causes havoc not only in economic activities but

also affect social life as well.

Phau and Teah (2009) identified two categories of consumers who buy counterfeit, namely

(i) deceptive counterfeit consumer (victim, unknowingly purchase the pirated products as

look similar) and (ii) non-deceptive counterfeit consumers (purchase the counterfeit version

even knew that is illegal). In a similar vein, Grossman and Shapiro (1988) divided the

business of counterfeits into two types known as deceptive purchase and non-deceptive

purchase. On one hand, deceptive counterfeit transactions occur when consumer cannot

readily seen the quality of the goods or differentiate copies from the original during the

purchasing process; they are the victims. In other words, deceptive counterfeit buyers are not

aware that the product that they are buying is a counterfeit; as is often happen in the case of

product categories such as automotive parts, electronics and pharmaceuticals (Grossman &

Shapiro, 1988). On the other hand, when consumers are aware that they are purchasing

counterfeits, they are involved in as non-deceptive counterfeit transactions, and they are

willing collaborators.

Nevertheless, researchers have generally agreed that in reality, most consumers fall under the

non-deceptive purchase behaviors (Prendergast et al., 2003). It is particularly obvious in

luxury market where consumers are often able to distinguish channels and the inferior quality

of the product itself (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000). Since these consumers knowingly purchase

the products that are not legitimate, the manufacturers and retailers cannot be blamed for

deceiving the consumers (Ang, Cheng, Lim & Tambyah, 2001). This non deceptive purchase

of counterfeits contributes to the discussion of consumer misbehavior in the marketplace,

indicating the need to understand the reasons for their misbehavior (Tatic & Cinjarevic, 2012)

Although counterfeiting goods are seen to be imitated products of low in quality,

inexpensive, distasteful, easily available and in certain cases, even unsafe (Trott & Hoecht,

2007; Nordin, 2009), the “quality” of counterfeit products are seen to have improve

gradually for the past several years (Budiman, 2012). This improvement has permeated into

almost every element of counterfeit product especially among premium or luxury products in

terms of its quality, durability and design (Turunen & Laaksonen, 2011). Therefore, this

could be one of the underlying reasons why the demand for counterfeit products is increasing.

This trend might have been getting worst recently (Nordin, 2009; Stravinskiene et al., 2013).

Rizwan et al. (2013) claim that counterfeiting is “liable for getting grievous monetary and

societal impairments to both legal manufacturers and society”. Yoo and Lee (2012) further

emphasize that counterfeiting leads to infringement of intellectual property rights, loss of

taxes and foreign investment, increment in social cost as well as occurrence of hazardous

outcomes.


3

Thus, counterfeiting has become a serious issue that must be resolved as it able to bring a bad

impact on national economics (Romani et al., 2012). However, in short, the consequences of

the counterfeit product, no matter consumers intend to buy or not, have some hostile effect on

consumers’ welfare as a whole (Haque, Khatibi & Rahman, 2009). Besides, it hampers the

benefits of the legal (actual producers) manufactures; even endanger the human life.

In the context of Malaysia, the Malaysian government has been seriously involved and played

its significant role to eradicate the counterfeiting issue. Many campaigns and activities were

carried out such as briefings, seminars and workshops with the aim to create awareness

among Malaysians the on the bad consequences of this unethical behavior. However,

government laws and enforcement are not sufficient to solve the problem (Stumpf, Chaudhry

& Perretta, 2011). Despite the worldwide legal sanctions against the manufacturing and the

consumption of counterfeit products, the problem is expanding rapidly. New ways are

required to control this phenomenon.

Prior research on counterfeiting (Bush, Bloch, & Dawson, 1989; Green & Smith, 2002; Nill

& Shultz, 1996; Olsen & Granzin, 1992) has focused on controlling the supply of counterfeit

goods (e.g., manufacturer, company, industry, retail channel, and government). However,

attempting to control the supply of counterfeits has not been successful. Because consumers

purchase and use counterfeits, what is more important is to study factors that contribute to

consumer decision making with regard to counterfeit products as a way to determine how to

gain control over this situation. The present study attempts to fill the gap in the counterfeit

literature that views the problem from the demand side. After all, it is basic economic

reasoning that if no demand for counterfeit products exists, supply will erode automatically.

Thus, as consumers play a leading and growing role in the existence of counterfeit trade (Yoo

& Lee, 2009), it is important to gain a deeper insight in potential determinants of consumers’

to knowingly purchase counterfeit goods. In particular, this study focuses on the influences of

behavioural intention on consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeit products.

Literature Review

Behavioural intention is defined as “the motivational factors that influence an individual’s

readiness to act and to demonstrate the effort they would strive to perform the behaviour”

(Ajzen, 1991). Armitage & Conner (2001) mention that, with the influence of positive

attitude and perceive opportunities, a behavioural intention is likely will be performed.

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991) stated that behavioural intention is the

main predictor and regarded as the immediate antecedent of individual behaviour.

Previous literature indicates that intention has established a significant association between

intention and behaviour, and accurately predicted a variety of action tendencies. Follows and

Jobber (2000) found a positive association between green purchase intention and behaviour,

which the results showed that individuals who perceived the environmental consequences is

important, would be likely to commit in green purchasing. In the food context, the intention

to buy or to consume certain types of food is considered to be one of the most important

behavioural indicators. In meta-analytic review of 185 independent studies, Armitage and

Conner (2001) reported that intention was the best predictor of future behaviour. In seafood

consumption studies, it showed that behavioural intention has a significant effect on

consumption frequency (Verbeke & Vackier, 2005; Tuu et al., 2008). Follows and Jobber

(2000) also found a positive association between green purchase behavioural intention and


4

behaviour, which the results showed that individuals who perceived the environmental

consequences is important, would be likely to commit in green purchasing. In the middle-east

market, Fernandes (2012) found that behavioural intention to purchase counterfeit products is

related to higher likelihood to purchase counterfeits. In the same vein, Riemenschneider,

Leonard and Manly (2013) has assumed that intention is an accurate proxy for behaviour.

From the above discussion, it shows that intention influences numerous behavioural

tendencies in many different setting; and in addition, intention has been established to have a

significant positive relationship towards behaviour. This shows that it is very important to

study the construct of behavioural intention and that it cannot be ignored. Ajzen and Fishbein

(1980) argue that intentions should always translate into behavior given there is

correspondence between measures of intentions and behavior and that intentions remain

constant prior to engaging in the behavior. However, intentions can change over time due to

new information, individual differences or a variety of unexpected factors such as illness or

injury, financial hardships, family issues or job loss (Ajzen, 1985). Unfortunately, much of

the research related to unethical behavior such as counterfeit purchase behavior using Theory

of Planned Behaviour (Bian & Moutinho, 2011) has assumed that intentions are an accurate

proxy for behavior and neglected the measurement of behavior. Indeed, Armitage and Conner

(2001) noted in their meta-analysis that most studies do not measure behavior per se.

Therefore, further empirical research is warranted to examine the predictive power of

behavioural intention towards counterfeit products purchase behaviour in Malaysia. Based on

the earlier discussion, we develop this hypothesis:

H1: Behavioural intention is positively related to consumer purchase behaviour of

counterfeit products.

Methodology

This study is correlational in nature where data was gathered once, to answer the study’s

research questions. The study was conducted with the intention to obtain a good grasp of the

consumer purchasing behavior of counterfeit products. A survey method was employed

because this study strongly believes that survey research is best adopted to obtain personal

and social facts, beliefs, and attitudes (Kerlinger, 1973). The unit of analysis for this study

was the individual consumer who went for shopping at hot spot areas that sell counterfeit

products. This study treats each consumer’s response as an individual data source.

The population for this study comprised consumers aged 18 and above who live in Peninsular

Malaysia. Sample for the present study were the consumers at the age of 18 and above who

visited and the hot-spot areas that sell conterfeit products in Kuala Lumpur, Pulau Pinang,

dan Johor Bharu and have experienced bought counterfeit products for at least 3 month ago.

Sample is a part of the whole pie of the total population. The given definition of sample by

Sekaran (2006) is “… subset of the population”. In this study, some percentage of the total

population of consumers is considered as the sample. The sample is studied in order to derive

with some conclusions about counterfeit purchase behaviour among Malaysian consumers.

Whereas, sampling is derived as “…the process of selecting a sufficient number of elements

from the population …” (Sekaran, 2006).


5

The sampling of this study refers to the sample size table by Krejcie & Morgan (1970).

Sekaran and Bougie (2009) has cited their table as guideline to make decision on sample size.

Therefore, in this study, the chosen sample size for this study is 384 since the total population

is more than 1,000,000 (refer Table 1). However, to ensure this minimal response number and

taking into account that survey method has poor response rate, we decided to distribute 450

questionnaires to selected consumers.

Table 1 Sample Size (starting with more than 10,000 populations)

Source: Sekaran and Bougie (2009)

In order to select the appropriate sampling design, the intercept survey was chosen.

According to Kotler et al. (2009), intercept survey involves stopping people at a certain

location requesting them to answer the questionnaires. In this study, the questionnaires were

filled by intercepting consumers at the locations where known at hot spot area that sell

counterfeit products such as Golden Triangle and Petaling Street at Kuala Lumpur, Holiday

Plaza in Johor Bharu and Gurney Drive in Penang. In addition, this intercept method has been

claimed to have several advantages such as speedier, lower cost and researcher has control

over the type of respondent (Chinomona, 2013).

One of the major concerns when using intercept surveys is ensuring the sampling procedure

so that the correct respondents are chosen (Keen et al., 2004). Since we preferred a more

random sample of the population and to avoid the convenience nature in the sampling design,

systematic sampling was used. Hence, following the same method used by Phau and Teah

(2009), every fifth shoppers who passed our data collection point were invited to participate

in our study. In order to avoid respondent bias, the research was carried out over a 4-days

period that included 2 weekend days and 2 weekdays for one month as well as different

shopping hours based on the opening hour of the identified hot spot area. For example,

Petaling Street starts its operation from mid until late evening (6.00 p.m till 12 a.m).

Shoppers were asked if they have experienced buying counterfeits before they were asked to

complete the survey to assure that they were familiar with the subject matter that were

presented in the questionnaire. For those who were not able to complete the questionnaire on

the spot, a pre-stamped envelope with the researcher’s mailing address is given to them. In

this case, customers can complete the questionnaires and mail them back to the researcher.

Population Size (N) Sample Size (s)

10,000 370

15,000 375

20,000 377

30,000 379

40,000 380

50,000 381

75,000 382

1,000,000 384


6

Out of the number of shoppers intercepted, 87 percent of them agreed (390 respondents) to

take part in this survey.

The main variables in this study were measured using multiple items drawn from previous

research except for the socio-demographic characteristics and general information relating to

counterfeit product purchase and users. However, some of the items were re-phrasing and

modified to suit the study local setting. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure all of

the items for the main variables to minimize the confusion among respondents and to make

sure of the equality among variables (Ackfeldt & Coole, 2003; Ingram et al., 1991). The five-

point Likert scale are: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree,

4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

The consumer purchase behaviour measure for this study was based on a study of Wang et al.

(2005), which examined counterfeit purchase behavior of pirated software among Chinese in

China, with modifications concerning the phrasing of the items to suit the general counterfeit

products context in this study. It required respondents to rate their responses towards four

items relating to counterfeit products purchase behaviour in general by measuring five self-

rating items on five-point Likert scale. The higher the score of purchase behavior, the higher

is the likelihood of purchasing counterfeit products. As Armitage and Conner (2001) indicate,

behavioural intention is measured in terms of expectation, and were assessed in terms of

intended, expected and desired. Therefore, in this study behavioural intention is

operationalized as the likelihood of an individual’s motivation and willingness to participate

in counterfeit product purchase (Ajzen, 1991). Consumer behavioural intention was measured

using the scale developed by Kim and Karpova (2010). Five items were assessed in terms of

will, intend, want and expect to purchase on the statements relating to counterfeit products.

Analysis and Findings

Out of the 390 respondents, 6o percent were female (60%) and aged between 21 to 30 years

(38%). This is followed by those in the age group of 31 to 40 years (19%). The majority

(40%) of the respondents are Malays (40%) followed by Chinese (38%), and more than half

of the respondents are singles (60%). The majority of the respondents are working in private

organization (33%), followed by government servants (18%) and self-employed (13%).

Majority of the respondents are high school leavers (46%), followed by degree holders (20%)

with majority of income between RM 2000 to RM 3000 (44%).


7

Table 2 Reliability Values and Mean Scores

Reliability

values

Mean Scores

Behavioural intention

to purchase

0.75 3.73

Purchase behaviour 0.63 3.16

Table 3 Correlations between Variables

Behavioural

intention

Purchase

Behaviour

Behavioural intention 1

Purchase behaviour 0.48** 1

**p≤0.01

As shown in Table 3 above, behavioural intention is significantly correlated with purchase

behaviour of counterfeit products, giving us a clue that this factor plays a significant

influence on consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeit products. In order to test the

hypothesis, multiple regression was used to analyze the effect of the independent variable on

purchase behaviour of counterfeit products. Result generated is shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Regression of Behavioural Intention on Purchase Behaviour of

Counterfeit Products

Independent

Variable

Standardized β t-statistics p-value

Behavioural

intention

0.583 4.21 0.000**

n=390; adjusted R²=0.68; F=7.363; ** p≤0.01

As shown in Table 4, result indicates that behavioural intention is a significant variable

having influences on the purchase behaviour of counterfeit products. This predictor is

explained by 68 percent of the variance in purchase behaviour of counterfeit products. In

summary, there is sufficient statistical evidence to support the hypothesis.

Discussion

This study found a significant influence of behavioural intention on purchase behaviour,

which corroborates many past findings in this regard (e.g., Reimenschneider et al., 2011;

Fukukawa, 2002; Phau et al., 2009). In fact, this study reveals that consumer intention

explains large percent of the variation in consumer purchase behavior of counterfeit products.

This indicates that consumer intention has high explanatory power to predict consumer

behavior of purchasing counterfeit products. This may indicate the consistency between what

respondents’ say they intend to do and what they actually do. Ajzen and Fishbein (2005)


8

referred to the issue of poor behavioural intention in predicting actual behaviour as a literal

inconsistency, which is the tendency for an individual not to do what they said they were

going to do. This support the argument made by Ozcaglar-Toulouse, Shui and Shaw (2006)

that behavior is deemed to be a direct function of an individual’s intention to conduct the

behavior.

The finding demonstrates that consumers have a positive impression towards counterfeit

products and that their actual purchase behavior is due to a strong belief that counterfeit

products are cheap, easy to get, safe, at par with original products and identical to original

products. Therefore, consumer good perception towards purchasing counterfeit products has

changed consumers from choosing original products towards counterfeits. The positive

association between behavioral intention and purchase behavior of counterfeit products

further confirms previous finding by Su, Lu and Lin (2012) that piracy intention is positively

related to purchase behavior of textbook piracy among Taiwanese respondents. This also

echoes the finding of Wu et al. (2013) that intention significantly explained gambling

involvement among Chinese gamblers. Last but not least, this result validates the Theory of

Planned Behaviour that intention is a good predictor index of behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are a number of limitations worthy of improvement and future research. The study was

conducted using intercept method, which may limit the population that could be reached.

Those who may purchase may not be regular shoppers at the selected locations but may be in

wholesale markets, night markets or online where counterfeit products are largely sold. As

the study is a snapshot of the Malaysian consumers who shop in the hot spot areas selling

counterfeits, extensions to a population of other areas in Malaysia of different socioeconomic

group and to other states may produce different results.

In the earlier discussion, it has been discussed that this research explored the consumers’

behaviour towards counterfeit products in general. Therefore, questions referring to all the

constructs in this study referred to the general concept of counterfeit products without

focusing on different counterfeit product categories. However, Phau and Teah (2009) argued

that counterfeit products should be examined as different categories and not as one

homogeneous group. Therefore, for future research, the study should focus on specific

counterfeit products categories with separate unique components such as luxury items,

fashion, cosmetics and spare parts. Consequently, different categories of counterfeit products

may have a different effect on the purchase behavior of the consumers.

From a methodological standpoint, the limitations of this study may include the selection of

samples. The collection of data was confined to only counterfeit hotspot areas particularly in

the Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor Baharu. Although we manage to get respondents

representing the majority of the states in Malaysia, these features may not be reflective of the

overall population in Malaysia. Thus, the results cannot be used to generalize to the whole

population of Malaysia. Future studies should therefore be extended with data collection in

other part of states to portray the real picture of counterfeit products purchase in Malaysia.

Moreover, the data in this study were obtained randomly from adult consumers (aged 18 and

above) who went shopping in selected counterfeits hot spot area in Kuala Lumpur, Penang


9

and Johor Baharu. For future research, it would be practical to attain a wider sample of adult

consumers, teenagers and/or college/university students.

Acknowledgements

This is to acknowledge that this study is fully funded by Ministry of Higher Education under

Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS).

References

Ackfeldt, A. L., & Coote, L. V. (2005). A study of organizational citizenship behaviors in a

retail setting. Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 151-159.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J.

Beckmann (Ed.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behaviour (11-39). Berlin, New

York: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of

attitudes, 173, 221.

Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A. C. & Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the difference:

consumer responses towards counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3),

219-35.

Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-

analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.

Budiman, S. (2012). Analysis of Consumer Attitudes to Purchase Intentions of Counterfeiting

Bag Product in Indonesia. International Journal of Management, Economics and

Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-12.

Bush, R. F., Bloch, P. H. & Dawson, S. (1989). Remedies for product counterfeiting.

Business Horizons, 32(1), 59-65.

Carpenter, J. M., & Lear, K. (2011). Consumer attitudes toward counterfeit fashion products:

Does gender matter? Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 7

(1), 1-16.

Chaudary, M. W. T., Ahmed, F., Gill, M. S. & Rizwan, M. (2014). The determinants of

purchase intention of consumers towards counterfeit shoes in Pakistan. Journal of

Public Administration and Governance, 4(3), 20-38.


10

Chinomona, R. (2013). The influence of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on

trust and intention to use mobile social software. African Journal for Physical, Health

Education, Recreation and Dance, 19(2), 258-273.

Fernandes, C. (2013). Analysis of counterfeit fashion purchase behaviour in UAE. Journal of

Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 85-97.

Follows, S. B. & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: A test

of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 723-746.

Fukukawa, K. (2002). Developing a framework for ethically questionable behavior in

consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1–2), 99–119.

Green, R.T. & Smith, T. (2002). Countering brand counterfeiters, Journal of International

Marketing, 10(4), 89–106.

Grossman, G.M. & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.

Haque, A., Khatibi, A. & Rahman, S. (2009). Factor influencing buying behaviour of piracy

products and its impact to Malaysian market, International Review of Business

Research, 5(2) , 383- 401.

Hendriana, E., Mayasari, P.A. & Gunaidi, W. (2013). Why do college students buy

counterfeit movies? International Journal of e-education, e-business, e-management

and e-learning, 3(1), 62-67.

Ingram, T.N., Lee, K.S. & Lucas, G.H. (1991). Commitment and involvement assessing a

sales force typology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 187-197.

Keen, C., Wetzels, M., De Ruyter, K., & Feinberg, R. (2004). E-tailers versus retailers:

Which factors determine consumer preferences. Journal of Business Research, 57(7),

685-695.

Kim, H. & Karpova, E. (2010). Consumer attitudes toward fashion counterfeits: Application

of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28(2),

79-94.

Kotler, P. & Caslione, J. (2009). How marketers can respond to recession and Turbulence.

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 8(2), 187-191.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educ Psychol Meas., 1, 7-17.

Nia, A. & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury

brands?. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 485-497.

Nill, A. & Shultz, C.J. II (1996). The scourge of global counterfeiting, Business Horizons,

39(6), 37-43.


11

Nordin, N. (2009). A Study on Consumers' Attitude towards Counterfeit Products in

Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Malaya, Malaysia.

Olsen, J. E., & Granzin, K. L. (1992). Gaining retailers' assistance in fighting counterfeiting:

Conceptualization and empirical test of a helping model. Journal of Retailing, 68 (1),

90-108.

Ozcaglar‐ Toulouse, N., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2006). In search of fair trade: ethical consumer decision making in France. International journal of consumer

studies, 30(5), 502-514.

Phau, I. & Teah, M. (2009), Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: A study of antecedents and

outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 26 (1), 15-27.

Prendergast, G., Chuen, L. H. & Phau, L. (2003). Understanding consumer demand for non-

deceptive pirated brands. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 20(7), 405-416.

Riemenschneider, C. K., Leonard, L. K., & Manly, T. S. (2013). Students' ethical decision-

making in an information technology context: A Theory of Planned Behavior

approach. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(3), 203-214.

Rizwan, M., Jamal, M. N., Ul-Abidin, Z., Zareen, K. G., Khan, A., Farhat, B., & Khan, R.

(2013). The determinants of purchase intention towards counterfeit mobile phones in

Pakistan. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(2), 220-236.

Romani, S., Gistri, G. & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands.

Marketing Letters, 2(3), 807-824.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building

Approach. Boston: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Sekaran, U. (2006). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Boston: John

Wiley & Sons.

Stravinskiene, J., Dovaliene, A., & Ambrazeviciute, R. (2014). Factors influencing intent to

buy counterfeits of luxury goods. Economics and Management, 18(4), 761-768.

Stumpf, S.A., Peggy, E. C., & Leeann, P. (2011). Fake: Can business stanch the flow of

counterfeit products? Journal of Business Strategy, 32(2), 4-12.

Su, H. J., Lu, L. C., & Lin, T. A. (2011). The mediating role of anticipated guilt in

consumers. Asia Pacific Management Review, 16 (3), 255-275.

Tatic, K & Cinjarevic, M. (2011). The effects of price on customer satisfaction with bank services. Sarajevo Business and Economic Review, 31, 147-171.

Trott, P. & Hoecht, A. (2007). Product counterfeiting, non-consensual acquisition of

technology and new product development. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 10(1), 126-143.


12

Turunen, L. L. M., & Laaksonen, P. (2011). Diffusing the boundaries between luxury and

counterfeits. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 468-474.

Tuu, H. H., Olsen, S. O., Thao. D. T. & Anh, N. T. K. (2008). The role of norms in

explaining attitudes, intention and consumption of a common food (fish) in Vietnam.

Appetite, 51, 546-551.

Verbeke, W. & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption: application

of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 44(1), 67-82.

Wang, F., Zhang, Z. H. & Ouyang, M. (2005). Purchasing pirated software: An initial

examination of Chinese consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 340-351.

Wu, A. M., Lai, M. H., Tong, K. K. & Tao, V. Y. (2013). Chinese attitudes, norms,

behavioral control and gambling involvement in Macao. Journal of Gambling Studies,

29(4), 749-763.

Yoo, B. & Lee, S.H. (2009). Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits?. Advances

in Consumer Research, 36, 280-286.

Yoo, B. H., & Lee, S. H. (2012). Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with genuine

fashion luxury brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each. Journal of

Business Research, 65 (October), 1507-1515.

does behavioural intention influence purchase … · 2017. 5. 12. · consumer intention has high...

Documents