Anda di halaman 1dari 107

A STUDY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDE

TOWARDS COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS


IN MALAYSIA

NORASHIKIN NORDIN

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY


UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
2009

1
A Study on Consumers’ Attitude towards
Counterfeit Products in Malaysia

Norashikin Nordin
Bachelor of Information Technology (Hons.)
University of Tenaga National
2006

Submitted to the Graduate School of Business


Faculty of Business and Accountancy
University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Business
Administration

2009

2
ABSTRACT

The study aims to investigate which of the social and personality factors affects the

attitude of the consumers towards counterfeit products. The study is also set out to

examine the relationship of consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit product with

purchase intention. A conceptual model is proposed by following the studies of

Huang et al. (2004), De Matos et al. (2007) and Phau and Teah (2009). A survey of

270 respondents was conducted in the Malaysian market. Pearson correlation,

multiple regression and the Sobel test were used to test the hypotheses postulated and

research question. It is discovered that perceived risk, price consciousness, novelty

seeking and normative susceptibility are the independent variables that strongly

influence consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit product. Attitude towards

counterfeit product was also found significant in influencing purchase intention. This

reinforces the mediator role of attitude in its relationship with purchase intentions. By

having a better understanding of the consumers’ behavioral intentions of buying

counterfeit products, the manufacturers and marketers of the genuine brand products

can make better marketing strategies to entice the consumer to buy the original

product and not the counterfeit version. Theoretical contribution of this study is an

extension of knowledge of consumers’ attitude with regards to counterfeit products.

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with great pleasure that I present you my thesis. This thesis would not have been

complete if it was not for a group of individuals whom I truly am grateful for having

in my life.

My first and deepest thank you goes out to Dr. Yusniza Kamarulzaman for her

guidance, comments, sleepless nights, and reassuring words. Her optimism got me

through tough times and she never fails to keep me on track. Dr., there was never a

stress mode in your presence. Thank you.

Special thanks to a dear friend whom had been there from the very beginning. Lau

Xue Hao, thank you.

To my parents, Dr. Nordin Othman and Norzela Abd. Jalil, for their prayers and

constant encouragement. They had faith in me even during the times that I did not.

Mama and Abah, I love you.

To my siblings, who kept sane and was always cheering me on. Thank you for

understanding.

Last but definitely not the least, my appreciation goes out to all the respondents who

took their time to participate in answering my questionnaire. May the benefits reaped

from this thesis help others in the future.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1


1.0 Background...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of counterfeit products issues in Malaysia ...............................................4
1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................5
1.3 Objective of the study ...............................................................................................6
1.4 Research Scope.........................................................................................................7
1.5 Research Question ....................................................................................................7
1.6 Importance of the Study............................................................................................8
1.7 Thesis Structure ......................................................................................................10
1.8 Summary.................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................12


2.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................13
2.1 Definition of Terminology......................................................................................13
2.1.1 Counterfeit Products ......................................................................................13
2.1.2 Attitude...........................................................................................................14
2.2 Literature of Variable..............................................................................................14
2.2.1 Information Susceptibility and Normative Susceptibility ..............................14
2.2.2 Price Consciousness.......................................................................................15
2.2.3 Value Consciousness......................................................................................16
2.2.4 Perceived Risk................................................................................................17
2.2.5 Integrity..........................................................................................................18
2.2.6 Personal Gratification ....................................................................................19
2.2.7 Novelty Seeking.............................................................................................19
2.2.8 Status Consumption .......................................................................................20
2.2.9 Attitude of Counterfeit Products ....................................................................20
2.2.10 Purchase Intentions ........................................................................................22
2.3 Summary.................................................................................................................23

CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ..........................24


3.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................25
3.1 Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................25
3.2 Hypotheses..............................................................................................................26
3.2.1 Social Factors (Independent Variable) ...................................................................27

5
3.3.2 Personality Factors (Independent Variable)...................................................27
3.3.3 Attitude towards counterfeit products (Mediating Variable) .........................30
3.3 Summary.................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................32


4.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................33
4.1 Research Design .....................................................................................................33
4.2 Questionnaire Development ...................................................................................33
4.3 Sampling Design.....................................................................................................35
4.4 Sample Size ............................................................................................................35
4.5 Sample Selection ....................................................................................................36
4.6 Data Collection .......................................................................................................36
4.7 Data Analysis Technique........................................................................................37
4.8 Summary.................................................................................................................38

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................39


5.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................40
5.1 Descriptive Analysis ...............................................................................................40
5.1.1 Gender............................................................................................................41
5.1.2 Age.................................................................................................................41
5.1.3 Citizenship .....................................................................................................42
5.1.4 Ethnic Group ..................................................................................................42
5.1.5 Marital Status .................................................................................................43
5.1.6 Education level...............................................................................................43
5.1.7 Occupation .....................................................................................................43
5.1.8 Monthly Income.............................................................................................44
5.2 Preliminary Analysis ..............................................................................................44
5.2.1 Data Screening – Reversing negatively worded items...................................45
5.2.2 Normality .......................................................................................................45
5.2.3 Reliability and Validity Analysis ...................................................................49
5.2.4 Factor Analysis ..............................................................................................51
5.2.4.1 Independent Variable.....................................................................................52
5.2.4.2 Mediating Variable ........................................................................................54
5.2.4.3 Dependent Variable .......................................................................................55
5.3 Bivariate Analysis...................................................................................................56
5.4 Multivariate Analysis..............................................................................................60
5.4.1 Assumptions Test...........................................................................................61

6
5.4.2 Standard Multiple Regression ........................................................................64
5.4.3 Sobel Test.......................................................................................................67
5.5 Summary.................................................................................................................68

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..........................................69


6.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................70
6.1 Discussion of the research result ............................................................................70
6.2 Contribution of the study ........................................................................................74
6.3 Managerial Implication...........................................................................................75
6.4 Research Limitation................................................................................................77
6.5 Recommendation for future research......................................................................78
6.6 Summary.................................................................................................................78

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................80

APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE........................................................................88

APPENDIX B – HISTOGRAM ..................................................................................................92

APPENDIX C – CORRELATION TABLE........................................................................ 98

7
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Source of measurement scale items ........................................................................34


Table 4.2: Summary of data analysis techniques and objective...............................................37
Table 5.1: Respondents Demographic Profile..........................................................................41
Table 5.2: The items of each variable and its simplified code .................................................46
Table 5.3: Mean, Standard deviation, Skewed and Kurtosis of each item ...............................48
Table 5.4: Corrected Item-Total Correlation (validity) of each item and Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient (reliability) of each scale .......................................................................................49
Table 5.5: KMO and Bartlett's Test for nine independent variable..........................................52
Table 5.6: Rotated Component Matrix for nine independent variable.....................................53
Table 5.7: KMO and Bartlett's Test for the mediating variable ...............................................54
Table 5.8: Component Matrix for the mediating variable........................................................55
Table 5.9: KMO and Bartlett's Test for the dependent variable...............................................55
Table 5.10: Component Matrix(a) for the dependent variable .................................................56
Table 5.11: Correlation between variables...............................................................................57
Table 5.12: Model Summary of Attitude towards counterfeit products...................................64
Table 5.13: Coefficients of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit products ........65
Table 5.14: Sobel/ Aroian/ Goodman tests of mediating effects..............................................67
Table 6.1: Summary of hypotheses and the result....................................................................70

8
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1: Histogram of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit products ...........63
Figure 5.2: Normal Probability Plot of Regression Standardized Residual of Dependent
Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit products ......................................................................63
Figure 5.3: Scatterplot of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit products ...........64

9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background

By definition, counterfeits are those products bearing a trademark that is identical to,

or impossible to tell apart from, a trademark registered to another party, thus

infringing the rights of the owner of the trademark. (Chaudhry and Walsh, 1996; Bian

and Veloutsou, 2007) Usually, successful branded products have the highest level of

attractiveness to counterfeiters. It is so, because products that do not have a trademark

are less appealing and would not be highly sought after, and efforts of counterfeiting

the products are futile.

It appears that all product categories are affected. Counterfeits of almost anything can

be found, from apparels to pharmaceuticals, electrical goods, bleach and dyes, books,

food and the list goes on. Clearly, counterfeiting has become a significant economic

phenomenon. Past researches have revealed that about one-third of consumers would

knowingly purchase counterfeit goods (Tom et al., 1998; Phau et al., 2001). Since

demand is always the key driver of a market, a number of researchers have argued

that consumer demand for counterfeits is one of the leading causes of the existence

and rise in growth of the counterfeiting phenomenon (Gentry et al., 2001; Ang et al.,

2001). As a direct result of these arguments, a good deal of research has focused on

identifying important factors that influence consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

1
According to the International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition (IACC, 2005) and the

International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI, 2003), considering the countries

worldwide, almost five percent of all products are counterfeit. The IACC also

estimated that counterfeiting is responsible in at least $200 billion a year for lost jobs,

taxes and sales (Furnham and Valgeirsson, 2007). This indicates that the problem,

which is already very serious, is growing and is likely to cause much more damages in

the future.

There seems to be some conscious efforts to eradicate the problem, including

implementing processes to trace, detect and prosecute counterfeiting offenders (Nill

and Shultz, 1996; Chow, 2000; Prendergast et al., 2002). However, the attempt seems

fruitless with the increasingly sophisticated counterfeit syndicates, the intensification

in world trade and emerging new markets, fast paced technology advancements, and

also the escalation of goods that are worth counterfeiting, making it harder to detect

and wipe out these activities. In addition, the lack of serious penalties allows

offenders to be increasingly brazen in their illegal pursuits (Hung, 2003; Sonmez and

Yang, 2005; Clark, 2006). However, if the government were to take serious measures,

it would need to be on a national, regional, and global level for it to be effective, but

until now, there are no perceived organized and solid efforts to overcome this

problem.

It is a sad case for owners of genuine products as the organization has invested huge

amount of money in designing, marketing and manufacturing their products, while

counterfeit producers use the brand names without having to design or incurring

marketing costs but yet able to reap the profits.

2
One thing for sure, it is now difficult to differentiate between imitation and genuine

goods as modern technology and sophisticated machines enable counterfeit goods to

resemble the genuine ones. Hence, it is difficult for the public to differentiate between

these two groups of products. The most obvious reason for people to buy counterfeit

products is that the counterfeit items are cheaper than the genuine items. It could also

be because the counterfeit products are easily accessible and available while genuine

products are not. Another factor that contributes to consumers’ demand for counterfeit

products is the pursuit of status goods and the desire of being in tune with fashions

and fads (Chang, 1998; Eisend and Schuchert-Guler, 2006). These prestige conscious

individuals prefer to own branded items as they assume that these products reflect

their "status" in the society but of course it comes with a price and clearly not

everybody can afford the branded products in the retail shop. Hence, in order to

quench the thirst of such up-scale, high end products, these individuals are willing to

buy counterfeit or imitation goods that closely resemble aesthetics and functions of

genuine items.

With the many factors that are thought to be contributing to the increase of

consumers’ demand towards counterfeit products, a study to explore these factors

should be conducted. Is price really the main factor that drives consumer to side the

counterfeits? However, if price is the main reason, the consumers should buy a

product without a brand or an unknown brand that offers a cheaper price. Why must

they opt for an imitated branded product knowing that it is of inferior quality?

Therefore, with the increasing sales of counterfeits worldwide today, a comprehensive

understanding of the determinants that leads to a counterfeit purchase will contribute

3
to the literature and may help the marketers of genuine branded goods to set up a

more refined and effective marketing strategies.

1.1 Overview of counterfeit products issues in Malaysia

Malaysia has a counterfeit market value of $378 million, with software dominating

$289 million of that market value. (Havocscope Global Market Indexes, 2008). Most

often the news broadcast on counterfeiting in Malaysia are usually associated with

branded goods, and now, these items are circulating in the form of essential products

and used on a daily basis.

The Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry’s enforcement division, through

their relentless raids in pursuit of these types of goods, have identified imitation

products such as garments, electrical items, pharmaceuticals, shoes, bags, leather

goods, watches, cigarettes, batteries, sauces, engine oils, toothpastes, detergents and

canned food, to name a few. It is clear that anything that has a demand and potential

to be copied would invariably attract infringers to resort to reaping profits through

producing similar counterfeit items which would then be sold to ‘blind’ and ignorant

consumers.

The ease of getting and buying counterfeit products does not help the situation as the

sellers of counterfeit products blatantly sell the goods at shopping malls, night

markets, and plazas. Globalization has made it relatively easy for imitation products

to flow into the local market and efficient logistics allow the counterfeit products to

move fast and within a short time frame. Despite constant enforcement, curbing the

flood of imitation goods in the local market is not easy. As far as the issue of IP law is

4
concerned, the Trademarks Act of 1976 has been amended to contain provisions for

border measures prohibiting counterfeit trademark goods from being imported into the

country.

Aside from legislation imposed, the government of Malaysia, specifically, the

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry, regularly holds talks and media

advertisements to improve public awareness on imitation goods particularly among

low-wage earners and youths. It is hoped that these efforts would increase awareness

on the negative effects of buying counterfeit products, as continuous support to the

illegal activity would have adverse effects on Malaysia's economy.

1.2 Problem Statement

Counterfeiting is a big business and it is rampant in Asia (Asian Wall Street Journal,

1999a). It is not difficult to get hold of a counterfeit product, be it clothes, watches,

handbags and many more. What is alarming is that sellers and buyers of counterfeit

products do their transactions in the open together with non-counterfeited products.

This phenomenon is bad news for the manufacturers of the genuine products as it

affects their businesses. The manufacture and sale of counterfeit products is

undermining company and brand reputations, hitting profits, devaluing research and

development costs, and incurring legal fees (Nash, 1989).

The issue remains as to why consumers buy counterfeit products even though they are

aware that these products are of lower quality (Albers-Miller, 1999). Is price the main

determinant of consumers’ favourable attitude towards counterfeit products? Are

there other underlying attributes, such as, concerned about the opinion and

5
expectation of others, or engrossed in keeping up-to-date with the latest fashion, or

simply prestige conscious? Many factors that may determine consumers’ attitude in

purchasing counterfeit products, but the question is, which factor and that is the main

issue to be answered.

There are very limited researches conducted to understand consumers’ behaviour in

purchasing and using counterfeit products particularly in Malaysia. Many of past

research have been done in countries such as China, Brazil, Taiwan, Singapore (Wang

et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2005; De Matos et al., 2007; Phau and

Teah, 2009). Therefore, in view of this gap, this study is constructed to explore and

understand the relationships between the attitude of consumers in Malaysia and the

purchase intention of buying a counterfeit product. It is also to examine the factors

affecting the attitude.

By understanding the factors that influence the attitudes of consumers towards

counterfeit products, which in turn lead to the intention of actually buying a

counterfeit product would help the manufacturers and marketers of genuine products

in understanding the consumers’ actions.

1.3 Objective of the study

This study strives to respond to the call for research to understand the purchase

intentions of the consumers who consciously seek out counterfeit brands and indulge

in purchase (Bloch et al., 1993; Cordell et al., 1996; Prendergast et al., 2002). It

strives to explore the consumers’ in Malaysia mindset in relation to purchasing

counterfeit products.

6
Thus, the objectives of this study are as follows:

1) To investigate which social or personality factor affects consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products.

2) To examine the relationship of consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products with the purchase intention.

3) To explore which of the factors that is dominant in influencing the consumers’

attitude towards counterfeit products, which then would lead to purchase

intention.

1.4 Research Scope

The study is to determine the factors that influence the attitude of consumers towards

counterfeit products, which is believed to lead to purchase intention. The study will be

within the context of Malaysian market and the respondents are consumers residing in

Malaysia of the age group of 18 years old and above. The respondents are chosen

from those 18 years and above because it is believed that they have a considerable

amount of spending power and substantial exposure and knowledge of counterfeit

products.

1.5 Research Question

The main research questions of this study are:

1. How do the social and personality factors influence consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products?

2. What is the impact of consumers’ attitude towards purchase intention?

7
3. What are the dominant factors influencing consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products, which leads to purchase intention?

By knowing the answer to these questions, the producers of genuine products are able

to understand why the consumers would want to buy the imitated or counterfeited

version of their products regardless of the genuine products’ superior quality. The

producers and marketers of genuine products could then come up with ways or

different strategies in enticing the consumers to buy the genuine products over the

counterfeit products.

1.6 Importance of the Study

From the theoretical perspectives, this study would help to understand the Malaysian

consumers’ behavioural intentions of buying counterfeit products better. It is an

extension of knowledge of consumers with regards to counterfeit products.

From the perspectives of marketers, this study would help to understand the

consumers’ attitudes; hence, the marketers can try to fulfil the consumers’ needs and

wants by portraying their products as what the consumer requires. By having a better

understanding of the consumers’ purchase intentions of buying counterfeit products,

the marketers of the genuine products can make better marketing strategies to entice

the consumer to buy the original products and not the imitations.

From the industry perspective, a better understanding of consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products can probably help overcome the illegal syndicate. Actions such

as making it compulsory for each manufacturer to support anti-counterfeiting firms

8
which employ investigators to carry out surveillance and raids against counterfeiters

or push the government and authorities to strengthen enforcement of respective laws

and regulations or one of which could be a penalty to the seller as well as the buyer to

eradicate the illegal trading.

9
1.7 Thesis Structure

• Background
• Overview of counterfeit product issue in Malaysia
• Problem Statement
CHAPTER 1: • Objective of the study
• Research Question
INTRODUCTION • Research Scope
• Importance of the study
• Thesis Structure
• Summary

CHAPTER 2:
• Introduction
• Definition of Terminology
LITERATURE REVIEW • Literature of Variable
• Summary

• Introduction
• Conceptual Framework
CHAPTER 3: • Hypothesis
• Summary
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES • Introduction
• Research Design
• Questionnaire Development
• Sampling Design
• Sample Selection
• Sample Size
CHAPTER 4: • Data Collection
• Data Analysis Technique
RESEARCH • Summary
METHODOLOGY

• Introduction
• Descriptive Analysis
• Preliminary Analysis
• Bivariate Analysis
CHAPTER 5:
• Multivariate Analysis (Multiple Regression)
• Summary
RESULTS AND FINDINGS

• Introduction
• Discussion of the research result
• Contribution of the study
CHAPTER 6: • Managerial Implication
• Research Limitation
CONCLUSION AND • Recommendation for future research
RECOMMENDATION • Summary

10
This thesis is organized into several chapters:

Chapter 1- Discusses about the counterfeit products issue, the problems related,

the objectives of this study, the research questions, and the importance

of this study.

Chapter 2- Presents the definition of terminologies and past literatures of

variables.

Chapter 3- Presents the conceptual model of the study as well as the postulated

hypothesis.

Chapter 4- Presents the research design, questionnaire development, sample

selection, data collection, and the data analysis technique.

Chapter 5- Discusses the analysis used on the data and its result.

Chapter 6- Discusses the findings, as well as the contributions, implications,

limitations of this study and recommendations for future research.

1.8 Summary

This chapter has discussed about counterfeit products in general and in Malaysian

context. Apart from that, this chapter has acknowledge the problem statement,

objective of this study, research scope, research question and finally the importance of

this study and the reason it was carried out. All of this is crucial as it provides the

readers a clear picture of what the study is about, in what ways it was done, and how

the academicians and marketers will benefit from this study. In the following chapter,

the literature review of all factors or variables to be studied is presented.

11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: • Introduction
LITERATURE REVIEW
• Definition of Terminology
• Literature of Variable
• Summary

CHAPTER 3:

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER 4:

RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 5:

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

CHAPTER 6:

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION

12
2.0 Introduction

The previous chapter has highlighted the importance of this study. This chapter will

cover previous literatures of each topic area. Literature reviews are secondary sources

obtained from published work such as journals, books, master’s thesis, conference

proceedings, and other reports. It is vital in supporting the derivation of hypothesis,

which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

2.1 Definition of Terminology

2.1.1 Counterfeit Products

A number of definitions have been used for product counterfeiting. The one given by

Cordell et al. (1996) was “any unauthorized manufacturing of goods whose special

characteristics are protected as intellectual property rights (trademarks, patents and

copyrights) constitutes product counterfeiting. This means, that the counterfeiters

copied or imitated products that has been patented and trademarked without

permission from the manufacturers of the genuine products. The products are seen to

look closely similar or identical to genuine products. This would include packaging,

labelling, and trademarks, intentionally passing off as the original product (Kay, 1990;

Ang et al., 2001; Chow, 2000).

Lai and Zaichkowsky (1999) stated that counterfeiting and piracy are in the same

essence since they are both the reproduction of identical copies of authentic products.

These two terms have been used interchangeably (Wee et al., 1995; Kwong et al.,

2003). However, piracy is mainly related to software and fixed medium contents such

as films and music recordings (Chow, 2000; Cheung and Prendergast, 2006).

13
Furthermore, counterfeiting is dissimilar to other forms of intellectual property

infringements like grey market goods. De Matos et al. (2007) have utilized scales that

measured grey market products for counterfeits, which is undeniably different in

characteristics and definition. Grey market goods are, by definition, overruns from

outsourced manufacturers that are distributed through unauthorized channels (Huang

et al., 2004; Gentry et al. 2006), whereas counterfeiting involves an illegally produced

copy of the original article.

2.1.2 Attitude

“Attitude” is “...a learned predisposition to behave in a consistently favourable or

unfavourable manner with respect to a given object.” (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997). It

is claimed to be highly correlated with one’s intentions, which in turn is a reasonable

predictor of behaviour. (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) This means that if a person’s

attitude towards counterfeit products is favourable, it is highly likely that the person

would consider purchasing a counterfeit product but if a person’s attitude towards

counterfeit products is unfavourable, then it is most likely that the person would not

consider purchasing a counterfeit product.

2.2 Literature of Variable

2.2.1 Information Susceptibility and Normative Susceptibility

Social influence refers to the effects that others have on an individual consumer’s

behaviour (Ang et al., 2001). Two common forms of consumer susceptibility to social

influences are information susceptibility and normative susceptibility (Bearden et al.,

1989; Wang et al., 2005). Information susceptibility refers to purchase decision based

14
on the expert opinion of others (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005), meaning that the

assurance of other’s opinions play an important role as a point of reference especially

when consumers have little knowledge of the product category or product brand. If

peers or reference groups were to have expert knowledge on the differences between

originals and counterfeits (such as in product quality), there are consequences of

being perceived to purchase counterfeits which would affect the consumers’

perception towards counterfeit products.

On the other hand, normative susceptibility concerns purchase decisions based on the

expectations of what would impress others (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005; Penz

and Sto¨ttinger, 2005). The consumers whom are normative susceptibility would

purchase a product based on what they assume the others would expect or want them

to buy. They are more inclined to satisfy the society’s expectations as self-image

plays a huge role and they want to make a good impression.

Consumers may be informationally susceptible, when expertise from others influences

their choice (e.g. when one does not know the product category), and normatively

susceptible, 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 behaviour is approved

by them.

2.2.2 Price Consciousness

Price plays an important role in affecting consumers’ attitude and it has been studied

extensively. According to the range theory, people use the range of remembered price

15
experiences to set lower and upper bounds on price expectations, such that the

attractiveness of a market price is a function of its position within this range

(Janiszewski and Lichtenstein, 1999). Reference price has been discussed as a factor

that importantly affects a consumer’s purchasing behaviour. After adaptation-level

theory was integrated into pricing theory, an internal reference price was presented as

a degree of adaptation that depends on recent price experiences (Janiszewski and

Lichtenstein, 1999). Rajendran and Tellis (1994) have found that within this context,

the lowest price is an important cue for a reference price, whereas over the time, the

past prices of the actual brand seem to become the most important cue.

The fact that consumers use the price in the authorized channel as a reference price is

plausible, and so the manufacturers of counterfeit products would take advantage of

lower price to attract consumers’ interest. Most researchers claim that price difference

is an important factor when purchasing counterfeit products (Bucklin, 1993; Chang,

1993; Weigand, 1991). When the sellers of counterfeit products sell simultaneously

alongside an authorized channel, consumers with a higher price consciousness may

prefer to select the counterfeit products sold at the lower price.

2.2.3 Value Consciousness

Perceived value has been defined as "the consumer's overall assessment of the utility

of a product based on what is received and what is given" (Zeithaml 1988). Most of

the consumers of counterfeit products pursue value for brand, prestige and image

benefits, but unwilling to pay a high price for it (Bloch et al., 1993). Therefore, for a

lower price and a substandard quality, counterfeits are considered value for money

(Bloch et al., 1993; Lichtenstein et al., 1990; Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005), as

16
counterfeit products usually provide the same functional benefits as the genuine, but

at a fraction of the price of the genuine products. Value conscious consumers consider

themselves as smart buyers. They are concerned of paying a low price but the product

is subject to some quality constraint.

2.2.4 Perceived Risk

Perceived risk is one of the main explanatory variables in consumers’ behaviour

(Mitchell, 1999; Mitchell and Boustani, 1993; Gabbott, 1991; Brooker, 1984).

Marketing literature has long acknowledged perceived risk as an important issue

during buying decisions, proposing that consumers seek to reduce uncertainty and the

unfavourable consequences of purchase decisions (Mitchell, 1999; Cox, 1967; Bauer,

1960).

Perceived risk comprises of multidimensional constructs (Mandel, 2003; Campbell

and Goodstein, 2001; Mitchell and Boustani, 1993; Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972;

Roselius, 1971):

• Functional (associated to the performance of the product)

• Financial (related with the potential monetary loss)

• Social (relative to the perception of other individuals about the consumer)

• Physical (relative to the health or physical well-being)

• Psychological risk (associated to the individuals self-esteem)

• Time risk (refers to the time lost as a result of product failure)

Each product has a set of these risks associated with its purchase and each consumer

has an individual level of tolerance towards each one (Mitchell, 1998). Since the

17
outcome of the choice decision made by the consumer can only be known in the

future, the consumers are forced to deal with uncertainty till the extent of the

consumers realize that the counterfeit products that they have bought did not

accomplish all of their buying goals, then, risk is perceived.

2.2.5 Integrity

The influence of basic values like integrity will affect the judgment towards

succumbing to unethical activities (Steenhaut and van Kenhove, 2006). Integrity is

determined by personal ethical standards and obedience to the law. If the consumers

view integrity as critical, the chances of them viewing counterfeit products as

favourable would be less, but if the consumers do not feel that integrity is important

then they would be in favour of counterfeits (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005).

Consumers’ purchase of a counterfeit is not a criminal act, but as consumers

participate in a counterfeit transaction that supports illegal activity, consumer’s

respect for lawfulness might explain how much engagement the consumer will have

in buying counterfeit products. 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 product (Ang et al., 2001).

Rather, they rationalize their behaviour in a way to reduce the cognitive dissonance of

an unethical behaviour.

18
2.2.6 Personal Gratification

Personal gratification is the need for a sense of accomplishment, social recognition,

and the desire to enjoy the finer things in life (Ang et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2005).

Consumers with high sense of personal gratification would be more conscious of the

appearance and visibility of fashion products and are probably less prone to accept

goods of inferior quality (Phau and Teah, 2009). This is because by buying a

counterfeit version of the genuine products, the consumers are seen as not thinking

highly of themselves. Buying a counterfeit product does not portray the consumer’s

accomplishment.

There are conflicting results in literatures because Bloch et al. (1993) suggest that

consumers choosing a counterfeit product see themselves as less well off financially,

less confident, less successful and lower status than non-counterfeit buyers. On the

contrary, Ang et al. (2001) reveal that there is no significant influence of personal

gratification on consumer attitudes toward counterfeits.

2.2.7 Novelty Seeking

Novelty seeking is the curiosity of individuals to seek variety and difference

(Hawkins et al., 1980; Wang et al., 2005). A consumer who is inclined to try new

products would probably have positive attitudes towards counterfeits of counterfeit

products. Novelty seeking consumers are particularly inclined towards products with

low purchase risk. Hence, the low cost of counterfeit products is well suited to satisfy

their curiosity and the need for experimentation (Wee et al., 1995).

19
2.2.8 Status Consumption

Status is a form of power that consists of respect, consideration, and envy from others

and represents the goals of a culture and status consumption refers to consumers who

are seeking self satisfaction as well as displaying their prestige and status to others

usually through visible evidence (Eastman et al., 1997). Status is a position or rank in

a society, which is given or awarded to an individual by others. Status consumers seek

to possess brands that exude brand symbols that reflect their self-identity. Eastman

(1997) suggests that significant levels of status consumption exist in all communities

in the world where the utility of products is measured by the social advantage these

purchases offer.

2.2.9 Attitude of Counterfeit Products

As counterfeits are the cheaper alternatives to the more expensive genuine products,

there might not be a significant difference in perceived quality (Gentry et al., 2006).

According to Tom et al. (1998), consumers are more inclined to purchase products

with a fashion component attached. Consumers are willing to pay for the visual

attributes and functions without paying for the associate quality (Grossman and

Shapiro, 1988; Cordell et al., 1996). Consumers are also expected to prefer counterfeit

products with a famous brand’s name attached that would present some meaning to

the consumer (Cordell et al., 1996). This reinforces the concept that only brand’s

names that are well known or worth counterfeiting, are targeted for illegal production

(Eisend and Schuchert-Gu¨ ler, 2006).

Past research has examined the economic, quality, and legal or ethical factors that

shape and influence attitudes of consumers (Cordell et al., 1996; Ang et al., 2001;

20
Wang et al., 2005). Ultimately, the functional benefits are important when purchasing

counterfeits products. However, it is also the desire to own the prestige and status

symbol that are inherent in the trademarked brand (Cordell et al., 1996; Chadha,

2007). More commonly, price also reflects consumers’ attitudes towards the value of

counterfeit products.

The general perception is that the low financial risks provide the added benefit for

consumers to purchase counterfeit goods, as prices of counterfeits are relatively

advantageous. In addition, because counterfeits are often sold at a lower price, the

expectation of quality would not be equivalent to that of the genuine articles. As long

as the basic functional requirements are met or the visibility and symbolic value is

achieved, consumers will be satisfied (Eisend and Schuchert-Gu¨ ler, 2006). However,

the quality of counterfeit products has been improved in recent years due to better

technological advancement, bringing a competitive advantage to counterfeit products

(Nill and Shultz, 1996). Certain products can be tried before purchase to gauge the

functionality or performance, which can encourage consumers’ willingness to

purchase (Cordell et al., 1996; Bian and Veloutsou, 2007).

However, unlike genuine products, counterfeit products are still without warranties,

adding to greater financial risks of purchases (De Matos et al., 2007). It has been

found that if the perceived product attributes between the genuine products and the

counterfeit products are similar in terms of quality, the purchase intention will be

higher (Wee et al., 1995; Penz and Sto¨ ttinger, 2005).

21
Consumers experiencing situational ethics excuse themselves for purchasing

counterfeits as justifiable because they perceive themselves to be less unethical or

illegal (Cordell et al., 1996; Albers-Miller, 1999; Gupta et al., 2004). Hence,

consumers feel less responsible towards their role as a counterfeit patron. The double

standards show indifferent attitudes towards the consumption of counterfeit goods,

since major corporations might not suffer from the perceived slight loss of profits

(Cordell et al., 1996; Ang et al., 2001; De Castro et al., 2007).

2.2.10 Purchase Intentions

According to the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), purchase behaviour is

determined by the purchase intention, which in turn determined by attitudes (Fishbein

and Ajzen, 1975). Attitudes towards behaviour instead of towards the product are

noted to be a better predictor of behaviour (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975;

Lutz, 1975; Yi, 1990; Penz and Sto¨ ttinger, 2005). However, the TPB also stated that

the opportunities and resources, such as the accessibility of counterfeit products, must

be present before purchase behaviour can be performed. Without such circumstances,

regardless of how favourable intentions are, it would be difficult to perform a

purchase (Chang, 1998).

The more favourable consumers’ attitudes towards counterfeiting are, the higher the

chances those consumers will purchase counterfeit brands. Similarly, the more

unfavourable consumers’ attitudes towards counterfeiting are, the less likely are the

chances of purchase (Wee et al., 1995). In addition, social and personality antecedents

22
have long been established to have an influence on consumers’ decision-making

(Miniard and Cohen, 1983) towards purchase intention.

The link attitude-behavioural intentions have been extensively examined in the

marketing literature. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action, attitude is

positively correlated with purchase intentions, which in turn is an antecedent of the

real behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

2.3 Summary

This chapter has covered the literature of past study based on the specific areas that

are relevant. These literatures will then support the hypotheses postulated in the

following chapter.

23
CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Introduction
CHAPTER 3: • Conceptual Framework
CONCEPTUAL
• Hypothesis
FRAMEWORK AND • Summary
HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER 4:

RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 5:

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

CHAPTER 6:

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION

24
3.0 Introduction

The previous chapter discusses the literature review of past study and research. This

chapter presents the conceptual framework model of this study, which consists of

independent variables, mediating variables and dependent variables. Hypotheses are

then postulated based on the model and supported by the literature review in chapter

2.

3.1 Conceptual Framework

SOCIAL FACTORS

IS

NS H1a

PERSONALITY FACTORS H1b

PC

H2a

VC
H2b
H3
H2c ATT PI
PR
H2d

I
H2e

Figure 3.1: Model of Consumers’ Attitude


PG H2f towards Counterfeit Product

H2g Note: IS – information susceptibility; NS – normative


NOVS susceptibility; PC – price consciousness; VC – value
consciousness; PR – perceived risk; I – integrity; PG – personal
gratification; NOVS – novelty seeking; SC – status
consumption; ATT – attitude towards counterfeit product; PI –
SC purchase intentions

25
From past research and literatures in Chapter 2, the conceptual model for this study is

as in Figure 3.1, which shows Information Susceptibility, Normative Susceptibility,

Price Consciousness, Value Consciousness, Perceived Risk, Integrity, Personal

Gratification, Novelty Seeking and Status Consumption as independent variables

(IV), Attitude of Counterfeit Products as the mediating variable (MV) and Purchase

Intention as the dependent variable (DV).

The model adapted and extended from Huang et al. (2004), De Matos et al. (2007),

Phau, and Teah (2009). Huang et al. (2004) examined three factors, De Matos et al.

(2007) model examined six factors, and Phau I. and Teah M. (2009) model examined

eight factors. The combination of all three models has derived a model with nine

factors.

Price Consciousness was adopted from Huang et al (2004), Information susceptibility,

normative susceptibility, value consciousness, novelty seeking and status

consumption was adopted from De Matos et al. (2007), and perceived risk was

adopted from Phau and Teah (2009). Both integrity and personal gratification were

taken from De Matos et al. (2007) and Phau and Teah (2009) model.

3.2 Hypotheses

The hypotheses indicated below is tested and discussed in this whole study

accordingly:

26
3.2.1 Social Factors (Independent Variable)

Social influence refers to the effects that others such as family members and/or

friends have on an individual consumer’s attitude. Two common forms of consumer

susceptibility to social influences are information susceptibility and normative

susceptibility (Bearden et al., 1989; Wang et al., 2005; Phau and Teah, 2009).

Informative Susceptibility and Normative Susceptibility

Informative susceptibility concerns purchase decisions, which are based on the expert

opinions of others, and normative susceptibility concerns purchase decisions, which

are based on the expectations of what would impress others (Ang et al., 2001). As

counterfeit products is not legal/ethical and does not have a positive social image,

consumers with higher susceptibility to social influence may present negative

attitudes towards counterfeit products. It can be hypothesized that:

H1a: Information susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

H1b: Normative susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

3.3.2 Personality Factors (Independent Variable)

Personality influence refers to the individual’s interpersonal influence without relying

on the opinion of others or conforming to the expectation of others.

Price Consciousness

Perception of the price cue for some consumers can be characterized more narrowly

as reflecting price consciousness. According to the term used by Lichtenstein et al.

27
(1993), price consciousness refers to the degree to which the consumer focuses

exclusively on paying low prices. Consumers whose main concern is paying a low

price on a product would opt for counterfeit products. Thus, it can be hypothesized

that:

H2a: Price consciousness has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

Value Consciousness

Value consciousness is defined as a concern for paying lower prices but with

acceptable standard of quality (Lichtenstein et al., 1990; Ang et al., 2001). As

counterfeit products usually provide similar functions to the genuine products but for

a lower price, consumers who are value-conscious may choose counterfeit products

over the genuine products. Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

H2b: Value consciousness has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

Perceived Risk

Marketing literature has long acknowledged perceived risk as an important issue

during buying decisions, suggesting that consumers seek to reduce uncertainty and the

inauspicious consequences of purchase decisions (Mitchell, 1999; Cox, 1967; Bauer,

1960). Thus, the greater the perceived risk, the lower is the likelihood of consumers'

consideration of a counterfeit product. It can be hypothesized that:

H2c: Perceived risk has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

28
Integrity

Integrity represents the level of consumers’ ethical standards and obedience to the law

(Ang et al., 2001). The more important integrity is to a consumer, the more negative

the consumer will feel about counterfeit products. Therefore, it can be hypothesized

that:

H2d: Integrity has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

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). Consumers with

high personal gratification will value the original version of the branded products,

thus have a negative attitude towards the counterfeit products. It can be hypothesized

that:

H2e: Personal gratification has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

Novelty Seeking

Novelty seeking is the curiosity of individuals to seek variety and difference

(Hawkins et al., 1980; Wang et al., 2005). Therefore, consumers who likes keeping

up-to-date would like to be seen with the latest products or designs would very likely

purchase counterfeit products as they are able to continuously change their style but at

a relatively lower price. It can be hypothesized that:

H2f: Novelty seeking has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

29
Status Consumption

Status consumers are more conscious of the display of accomplishment (Phau and

Teah, 2009). The consumers would most likely buy and even pay more for a product

that has status. Should their peers or family members know that they buy counterfeit

products, the status consumers would feel that their image is tarnished thus their

attitudes towards counterfeit products would be unfavourable. It is therefore

hypothesized that:

H2g: Status consumption has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

3.3.3 Attitude towards counterfeit products (Mediating Variable)

According to the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), purchase behaviour is

determined by the purchase intention, which is in turn determined by attitudes

(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The more favourable consumers’ attitudes towards

counterfeiting are the higher the chances those consumers will purchase counterfeit

products. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H3: Consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products has no effects on

purchase intention.

3.3 Summary

This chapter has presented the conceptual model for this study. The model was

derived from past studies of Huang et al. (2004), De Matos et al. (2007), Phau, and

Teah (2009). There are nine independent variables, namely, information

susceptibility, normative susceptibility, price consciousness, value consciousness,

30
perceived risk, integrity, personal gratification, novelty seeking and status

consumption, one mediating variable which is consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products and one dependent variable namely purchase intention. The hypotheses

developed test the effects that one variable has over another variable. Hypothesis 1

tests the effects of social factors on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products.

Hypothesis 2 tests the effects of personality factor on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products. Finally, hypothesis 3, tests the effects of consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products on purchase intention. All of the hypotheses result will

be tested in chapter 5. The next chapter presents the research methodology.

31
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3:

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND • Introduction
HYPOTHESES • Research Design
• Questionnaire Development
• Sampling Design
CHAPTER 4:
• Sample Size
• Sample Selection
RESEARCH • Data Collection
METHODOLOGY
• Data Analysis Technique
• Summary

CHAPTER 5:

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

CHAPTER 6:

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION

32
4.0 Introduction

The previous chapter has presented the conceptual model and discussed the

hypotheses that are to be analyzed. The content of this chapter will cover the methods

chosen to do the analysis such as how the questionnaire was developed, how the

sample was selected, how the data was collected, and what are the analysis techniques

that will be used on the data obtained from the questionnaire.

4.1 Research Design

The approach of study taken is the quantitative approach. The approach is seen as

having objective observations, precise measurements, statistical analysis and

verifiable truths. The hypotheses that were constructed in Chapter 3 will be tested by

carefully analyzing the data using statistics.

A combination of both primary and secondary data collection methods have been used

for this study. The primary data for this study is obtained from the data collected

through the questionnaire distributed. The secondary data is collected from past

literature reviews and relevant articles.

4.2 Questionnaire Development

Based on the literature, the researcher assembled the questionnaire, using scales that

was already validated in previous research (Huang et al., 2004; De Matos et al., 2007;

Phau and Teah, 2009) as can be seen in Table 4.1, which summarizes the items used

in each scale, as well as the authors as reference.

33
Table 4.1: Source of measurement scale items

Variables Number Type of


measurement Source of items variable
Information Phau and Teah (2009); Bearden et
Susceptibility (IS) al. (1989) 4 Independent
Normative Phau and Teah (2009); Bearden et
Susceptibility (NS) al. (1989) 4 Independent
Price Consciousness Huang et al. ( 2004); Lichtenstein
(PC) et al. (1993) 4 Independent
Value Consciousness Phau and Teah (2009); Lichtenstein
(VC) et al. (1990) 4 Independent
De Matos et al. (2007); Dowling
Perceived Risk (PR) and Staelin (1994) 5 Independent
Phau and Teah (2009); De Matos et
Integrity (I) al. (2007); Vinson et al. (1977) 4 Independent
Personal Phau and Teah (2009); Wee et al.
Gratification (PG) (1995) 5 Independent
Novelty Seeking Phau and Teah (2009); Rokeach
(NOVS) (1973) 4 Independent
Status Consumption Phau and Teah (2009); Eastman et
(SC) al. (1997) 5 Independent
Attitudes towards Phau and Teah (2009); De Matos et
counterfeits (ATT) al. (2007); Wang et al. (2005) 5 Mediating
Purchase Intentions Phau and Teah (2009); De Matos et
(PI) al. (2007); Ang et al. (2001) 6 Dependent

There are two parts in the questionnaire (refer to Appendix A). Part I consists of all

the variables (independent, mediating, dependent), and part II asks for the

respondents’ demographics. The participants answered the items of each variable in

part I using Likert scales varying from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

34
In this study, there is no particular counterfeited product being specified. Questions

considered the expression “counterfeit products” as general because the aim is just to

assess consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products as an overall.

4.3 Sampling Design

Non-probability sampling is used in this study, meaning that the elements in the

population have no probability attached to their being selected as sample subjects.

The type of probability sampling that was chosen to collect the sample is convenience

sampling because the response can be obtained quickly and efficiently. It involves

collecting information from members of the population who are conveniently

available to provide it.

The sampling frame for this study is based on the consumer’s age, ethnic group,

education level, occupation, and income level.

4.4 Sample Size

For this study, Roscoe (1975) rules of thumb are followed for determining the sample

size:

• The sample size is larger than 30 and smaller than 500.

• A minimum sample size of 30 for each category in the sub samples (e.g.

Malay/ Chinese/ Indian, SPM/ diploma/ bachelor/ postgraduate, and others).

35
4.5 Sample Selection

A survey was conducted among respondents in Klang Valley and the samples selected

are of consumers between the age of eighteen and above. The respondents include

both male and female, who are students or working professionals from various

institutions and organizations, or self-employed or even retirees.

4.6 Data Collection

A total of 300 self-administrated questionnaires were distributed through many

different channels, namely, via email, via mall intercept at a shopping complex, and

via direct distribution to students at public and private universities. Data collection

was performed over a two-week period on both weekdays and weekends.

A ball pen and imported chocolates were given out to the respondents of mall

intercept and direct distribution, as a token of gratitude. The researcher felt like it was

necessary, as some were hesitant to spend their time answering the questionnaires.

Several universities were visited to gather responses for the occupation category of

students. For respondents that were approached via email, constant reminders had to

be given, as some would forget to reply.

The questionnaire was also circulated amongst work colleagues of family and friends.

This is to ensure that there are no biases. In the end, a total of 270 questionnaires that

were completed and returned were used for further analysis in Chapter 5.

36
4.7 Data Analysis Technique

To fulfil the objectives of the study, a number of analyses were used on the data

obtained from the questionnaire as the summary of the analyses seen in Table 4.2

Table 4.2: Summary of data analysis techniques and objective

Analysis Methods Objective


Descriptive Analysis • Frequencies To see the pattern of respondents’
demographics
Normality Test • Histogram To ensure that the data collected are
• Boxplot normally distributed
• Skewness
• Kurtosis
• Normal Q-Q plot
• Detrended Q-Q plot
Reliability Test • Cronbach’s alpha To confirm the internal consistency
of all measured items in the
questionnaire
Validity Test • Corrected Item-Total To assess whether the item measures
Correlation what it is supposed to measure
Factor Analysis • Principal Component To verify the dimensionalities of
(Dimensionality) Analysis (PCA); measured constructs
Bivariate Analysis • Pearson Correlation To analyze the strength and
direction of the relationship between
two continuous variables
Multivariate Analysis • Standard multiple To explore the predictive ability of a
(Multiple Regression) regression set of independent variables on one
continuous dependent variable
• SOBEL test To test whether a mediator carries
the influence of an independent
variable to a dependent variable

37
4.8 Summary

This chapter has discussed the approaches taken to do the study. The items in the

questionnaire were taken from different sources such as Phau and Teah (2009), De

Matos et al. (2007), Wang et al. (2005), Ang et al. (2001), and others. The data

analysis to be done on the data obtained from the questionnaire was also presented;

complete with the method to be taken and its objective. In the next chapter, the data

analysis technique that had been mentioned will be performed on the data obtained

from the questionnaire.

38
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND FINDINGS

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3:

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND

CHAPTER 4:

RESEARCH

• Introduction
• Descriptive Analysis
CHAPTER 5:
• Preliminary Analysis
RESULTS AND FINDINGS • Bivariate Analysis
• Multivariate Analysis
(Multiple Regression)
CHAPTER 6:
• Summary

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION

39
5.0 Introduction

In the previous chapter, the research methodology was presented along with a

summary of data analysis that is to be performed in this chapter. Thus, the content of

this chapter looks into the analyses tested on the data and its result. The analyses are

divided into four sections. In the first section, descriptive analysis was done to see the

pattern and frequency of respondents demographic. In the second section, preliminary

analysis such as normality, reliability, validity and factor analysis were assessed.

Normality tests is to see whether the data obtained were normal, reliability test is to

see whether the items that make up a scale are all measuring the same underlying

construct, validity test is to see whether the item measures what it is supposed to

measure, and factor analysis is to verify the dimensionalities of measured constructs.

In the third section, Bivariate analysis was done by using Pearson correlation to test

the hypotheses made in Chapter 3. In the final section, Multivariate analysis was used

to see the predictive ability of the set of independent variables on the dependent

variable and whether, the mediator carries the influence of an independent variable to

a dependent variable.

5.1 Descriptive Analysis

A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed and only 270 completed questionnaires

were returned and taken as the sample. The 90 per cent response rate included both

male and female, out of which, 119 were male and 151 were female. There were no

missing values coded when the data was typed in the SPSS system.

The respondents’ demographic profile, which consists of gender, age, citizenship,

ethnic group, marital status, education, occupation and monthly income, were

40
analyzed and summarized as in Table 5.1. It is hope to contribute in explaining the

findings of this study for deeper understanding.

5.1.1 Gender

A large portion of the respondents were female with 55.9% and the rest male making

44.1%. The difference in frequency is 32 respondents and it is not found to be

significant as the researcher finds it to be almost equal.

5.1.2 Age

The majority of the sample comprised of people aged in the range of 21-30 years old

which contributed 61.9%, followed by those aged in the range of 31-40 and those

below 21 years of age with 20.0% and 12.6% respectively. One of the methods used

were mailing the questionnaire via the Internet, which explains why the majority falls

within the range of 18-40 years old as they are considered more technology savy, thus

responding via email is of not problem to them. Another method that were used, was

distributing the questionnaires at universities, targeting both undergraduate and

postgraduate students. Again, this could explain as to why most of the respondents

falls within the age of 18-40 years old.

Table 5.1: Respondents Demographic Profile

Variable Category Frequency Percent


Gender Male 119 44.1
Female 151 55.9
Age Below 21 34 12.6
21-30 167 61.9
31-40 54 20.0
41-50 8 3.0
51-60 7 2.6

41
Citizenship Malaysian 258 95.6
Others 12 4.4
Ethnic group Malay 170 63.0
Chinese 47 17.4
Indian 33 12.2
Others 20 7.4
Marital status Single 209 77.4
Married 59 21.9
Divorced/Widow 2 0.7
Education SPM 38 14.1
Diploma 30 11.1
Bachelor degree 145 53.7
Postgraduate 57 21.1
Occupation Professional 49 18.1
Top management 7 2.6
Manager 20 7.4
Executive 56 20.7
Clerical/Admin 9 3.3
Student 105 38.9
Self-employed 13 4.8
Not working 10 3.7
Retiree 1 0.4
Monthly income Below RM2,000 119 44.1
RM2,000-RM4,000 98 36.3
RM4,001-RM6,000 38 14.1
RM6,001-RM8,000 3 1.1
RM8,001-RM10,000 4 1.5
RM10,001 and above 8 3.0

5.1.3 Citizenship

Almost all of the respondents were Malaysian citizen with 95.6% and only 12

respondents were of other citizenship contributing to only 4.4%. Other citizenship

were of the respondents from Iran, Sudan and Oman. All of them are students

studying in Malaysia.

5.1.4 Ethnic Group

Ethnicity were divided into four categories with Malay, contributing 63%, Chinese,

17.4%, Indian, 12.2% and others, 7.4%. The result coincides with the overview

42
statistics of Malaysia with Malays contributing the highest number of population,

followed by the Chinese, then the Indians and finally others.

5.1.5 Marital Status

For marital status, a huge number of respondents are single with a frequency of 209

respondents, followed by married respondents of 59 and only 2 divorcee or widow.

The justification for this is due of that 74.4% or 201 of the respondents are of 30 years

old and below. It is very likely that these respondents are not married yet as the norm

for males to get married is 30 years old and above, and for females, 27 years and

above.

5.1.6 Education level

Looking at the education segment, the sample has 38 SPM holders, 30 diploma

holders, 145 bachelor degree holders, and 57 postgraduates with their percentages of

14.1%, 11.1%, 53.7%, and 21.1% respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that

85.9% of the respondents are of people with higher education.

5.1.7 Occupation

In the occupation segment, the majority of the respondents are students with 38.9%,

followed by executives with 20.7%, professionals with 18.1% and others such as

managers, self-employed, not working, clerical or admin, top management and retiree.

As mentioned earlier, a large portion of the respondents had a higher formal

education, therefore it is not surprising that a huge percentage goes to Student (those

43
who are still studying), Executive, Professional, Manager and Self-employed who are

mostly businessman or businesswoman.

5.1.8 Monthly Income

Monthly income of the respondents was also looked into with a majority having

below RM2,000 contributing 44.1%, followed by respondents having RM2,000-

RM4,000 with 36.3% and those having RM4,001-RM6,000 with 14.1%. A total of

119 respondents has an income of below RM2,000 because they are students and

those having an income of RM2,000-RM4,000 is due to the respondents’ age which

falls in the range of 21-30 years old and have only started building a career.

It can be concluded that the majority of these samples are Malaysian respondents,

falling in the range of 21-30 years old, Malay, single, has a bachelor degree, with an

income of RM4,000 and below.

5.2 Preliminary Analysis

Data screening, normality test, reliability test, validity test, and factor analysis were

all done in order to ensure that the data is ready for use to conduct analyses and to test

the hypotheses derived in Chapter 3.

44
5.2.1 Data Screening – Reversing negatively worded items

Before any statistical analysis were performed, the negatively worded items in the

data set were reversed. Only 1 worded item were reversed from the status

consumption construct:

• SC_4 - The status of a product is irrelevant to me

5.2.2 Normality

There are a number of tests, which one could do to see whether the data obtained is

normally distributed. It is important for the data to be normally distributed in order to

carry out tests such as Pearson correlation and multiple regressions.

One way to test the normality of data is by using histogram and Box Plot (refer to

Appendix B). As can be seen, the data is normal which allows for further analyses.

Another way is to look at the skewed and kurtosis of each item as can be seen in

Table 5.3. The skewed value provides an indication of the symmetry of the

distribution whereas the kurtosis provides information about the ‘peakedness’ of the

distribution. All items complied with the skewed and kurtosis level, by having values

below 2 and 3, indicating that all items within the normality curve.

Table 5.2 states the items of each variable and its simplified code to know which item

is which, in table 5.3, whereas in table 5.3, the mean, standard deviation, skewed and

kurtosis of each item in the questionnaire is presented.

45
Table 5.2: The items of each variable and its simplified code

Variable Item Item Code


Informative I observe what others are buying and using before buying IS_1
susceptibility a product
If I have little experience with a product, I ask around IS_2

I consult other people to help choose the best alternative IS_3


available from a product class
I gather information from friends or family about a IS_4
product before I buy
Normative It is important that others like the products and brands I NS_1
susceptibility buy
If other people see me using a product, I often purchase NS_2
the brand they expect me to buy
I like to know what brands and products make good NS_3
impressions on others
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same NS_4
brands that they buy
Price consciousness I usually purchase the cheapest items PC_1

I usually purchase items on sale only PC_2

I often find myself checking prices PC_3

A person can save a lot by shopping for bargains PC_4

Value I am concerned about price and product quality VC_1


consciousness
I compare prices for the best value for money VC_2

I like to be sure that I get my money worth VC_3

I try to maximize the quality for the money spent VC_4

Perceived risk The risk that I take when I buy a counterfeit product is PR_1
high
There is high probability that the product doesn’t work PR_2

Spending money with counterfeit products might not be PR_3


wise
Buying counterfeit products make me feel PR_4
unhappy/frustrated
If I buy counterfeit products, it may negatively affect what PR_5
others think of me
Integrity I value honesty I_1

I value politeness I_2

I value responsibility I_3

I value self control I_4

46
Personal A comfortable life is important to me PG_1
gratification
An exciting life is important to me PG_2

A sense of accomplishment is important to me PG_3

I value pleasure PG_4

I value social recognition PG_5

Novelty seeking I am always one of the firsts to try new products NOVS_1

I am excited to purchase some interesting products NOVS_2

I own a lot of popular products NOVS_3

I keep up with fashion NOVS_4

Status consumption I am interested in new products with status SC_1

I would buy a product just because it has status SC_2

I would pay more for a product if it had status SC_3

The status of a product is irrelevant to me SC_4

A product is more valuable to me if it has ‘high status’ SC_5


appeal
Attitude towards Counterfeit products are as reliable as the genuine ATT_1
counterfeit product products
Counterfeit products have similar quality to the genuine ATT_2
products
Counterfeit products provided similar functions to the ATT_3
genuine products
Considering price, I prefer counterfeit products ATT_4

Generally speaking, buying counterfeit products is a wise ATT_5


choice
Purchase intentions I would think about a counterfeit products as a choice PI_1
when buying something
I will buy counterfeit products PI_2

I will consider purchasing counterfeit products for a friend PI_3

I would recommend counterfeit products to friends and PI_4


family
I will buy counterfeit products from peddlers PI_5

I would say favourable things about counterfeit products PI_6

47
Table 5.3: Mean, Standard deviation, Skewed and Kurtosis of each item

Constructs Item Mean Standard Skewed Kurtosis


Deviation
Informative susceptibility IS_1 5.11 1.558 -0.888 0.266
IS_2 5.62 1.281 -1.071 1.088
IS_3 5.23 1.413 -0.765 0.129
IS_4 5.56 1.337 -1.027 0.908
Normative susceptibility NS_1 3.76 1.778 0.430 -1.095
NS_2 3.40 1.678 0.240 -0.823
NS_3 4.20 1.787 -0.228 -0.999
NS_4 3.11 1.764 0.436 -0.869
Price consciousness PC_1 3.84 1.595 0.97 -0.717
PC_2 4.27 1.601 -0.214 -0.768
PC_3 5.61 1.331 -0.967 0.345
PC_4 5.51 1.349 -0.853 0.365
Value consciousness VC_1 6.00 1.121 -1.356 2.201
VC_2 5.88 1.221 -1.394 2.369
VC_3 6.08 1.072 -1.377 2.199
VC_4 6.06 1.065 -1.124 0.730
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

Perceived risk PR_1 5.03 1.450 -0.376 -0.456


PR_2 5.17 1.337 -0.557 -0.020
PR_3 4.94 1.402 -0.285 -0.521
PR_4 4.49 1.460 0.026 -0.536
PR_5 4.19 1.548 -0.101 -0.472
Integrity I_1 6.14 1.059 -1.240 1.157
I_2 6.09 1.115 -1.236 1.144
I_3 6.26 0.915 -1.232 1.274
I_4 6.10 1.040 -1.127 0.965
Personal gratification PG_1 6.21 0.985 -1.422 2.124
PG_2 5.96 1.057 -0.889 0.402
PG_3 6.11 0.955 -0.928 0.275
PG_4 6.04 1.034 -1.253 2.248
PG_5 5.55 1.263 -0.807 0.543
Novelty seeking NOVS_1 3.75 1.487 0.91 -0.462
NOVS_2 4.99 1.363 -0.590 -0.067
NOVS_3 4.06 1.507 0.161 -0.549
NOVS_4 3.97 1.573 -0.170 -0.744
Status consumption SC_1 4.09 1.573 -0.177 -0.760
SC_2 3.25 1.602 0.300 -0.732
SC_3 3.63 1.747 0.110 -0.990
SC_4 3.86 1.543 0.134 -0.552
SC_5 3.96 1.682 -0.151 -0.808
Attitude ATT_1 3.45 1.614 0.123 -0.715
ATT_2 3.21 1.563 0.246 -0.790
ATT_3 3.99 1.585 -0.377 -0.734
ATT_4 3.75 1.651 -0.92 -0.711
ATT_5 3.28 1.620 0.145 -0.850

48
Purchase intentions PI_1 3.74 1.594 -0.206 -0.668

DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
PI_2 3.80 1.575 -0.333 -0.676
PI_3 3.40 1.591 -0.134 -0.986
PI_4 3.35 1.596 0.019 -0.837
PI_5 3.37 1.563 -0.103 -0.852
PI_6 3.41 1.532 0.015 -0.622

5.2.3 Reliability and Validity Analysis

Reliability is done to confirm the internal consistency of all measured items in the

questionnaire. In other words, it is to see whether the items that make up a scale are

all measuring the same underlying construct. To check whether or not the items are

measuring the same underlying construct, by referring at the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient scale, the commonly accepted alpha is 0.7 and above.

Validity is done to assess whether the item measures what it is supposed to measure.

To check whether the item is measuring what it is supposed to measure, refer to the

Corrected Item-Total Correlation. The figure in this column gives an indication of the

degree to which each item correlated with the total score. Low values (less than 0.3)

indicate that the item is measuring something different from the scale as a whole.

Table 5.4: Corrected Item-Total Correlation (validity) of each item and


Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (reliability) of each scale

Constructs Item Corrected Cronbach’s


INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

Item-Total Alpha
Correlation Coefficient
Informative susceptibility IS_1 0.509 0.798
IS_2 0.660
IS_3 0.658
IS_4 0.634
Normative susceptibility NS_1 0.744 0.811
NS_2 0.728
NS_3 0.767

49
NS_4 0.808
Price consciousness PC_1 0.478 0.696
PC_2 0.588
PC_3 0.490
PC_4 0.376
Value consciousness VC_1 0.667 0.866
VC_2 0.793
VC_3 0.773
VC_4 0.641
Perceived risk PR_1 0.530 0.778
PR_2 0.609
PR_3 0.623
PR_4 0.626
PR_5 0.393
Integrity I_1 0.880 0.940
I_2 0.866
I_3 0.896
I_4 0.807
Personal gratification PG_1 0.646 0.843
PG_2 0.677
PG_3 0.671
PG_4 0.718
PG_5 0.567
Novelty seeking NOVS_1 0.611 0.774
NOVS_2 0.501
NOVS_3 0.630
NOVS_4 0.570
Status consumption SC_1 0.645 0.792
SC_2 0.753 **0.886
SC_3 0.803
*SC_4 0.078
SC_5 0.660
Attitude towards ATT_1 0.761 0.880
counterfeit products
ATT_2 0.702
ATT_3 0.675
ATT_4 0.713
ATT_5 0.716
Purchase intentions PI_1 0.713 0.927
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE

PI_2 0.823
PI_3 0.732
PI_4 0.875
PI_5 0.778
PI_6 0.804
*Item deleted
**The Cronbach’s alpha value if item deleted

50
According to the reliability test, all the scale except for Price Consciousness has a

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of above 0.7. This indicates that the items in each scale

are all measuring the same underlying construct.

Although the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for Price Consciousness is below 0.7, all

the figures in the column marked Corrected Item-Total Correlation has values above

0.3, therefore not supporting the lack of reliability of this scale. The scale will remain.

The only item that is to be taken out of its scale is item SC_4 because it has extremely

low Corrected Item-Total Correlation value with only 0.078, which indicates that

items were measuring something different from the scale. To support, the Cronbach’s

alpha value, if item deleted is higher than the final alpha value. Therefore, item SC_4

will no longer be included in further analysis.

Another round of reliability and validity test was done on the Status Consumption

scale. The new Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for Status Consumption is 0.886

affirming the reliability of the scale and each item in the scale had Corrected Item-

Total Correlation of more than 0.3, affirming the validity of the scale.

5.2.4 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is a multivariate technique, which would confirm the dimensions of

the concept that have been properly defined, as well as indicate which of the items are

most appropriate for each dimension. Factor analysis is also known as a ‘data

reduction’ technique. It takes a large set of variables and looks for a way to reduce or

summarize the data using a smaller set of factors or components.

51
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (1970), suggested that threshold for KMO statistic is a value

below which is unacceptable or not appropriate for factor analysis to be performed.

• 0.5 - 0.7 Mediocre

• 0.7 - 0.8 Good

• 0.8 - 0.9 Great

• >0.9 Superb

5.2.4.1 Independent Variable

A total of 38 items from the 9 independent scales were subjected to principal

components analysis (PCA) using SPSS Version 15.0. Prior to performing PCA, the

suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix

revealed the presence of many coefficioents of 0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-

Oklin value was 0.844, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 and the Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (p=.000), supporting the

factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 5.5: KMO and Bartlett's Test for nine independent variable

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy. .844

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi- 5813.25


Sphericity Square 9
Df 703
Sig. .000

52
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of nine components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1 (7.881, 5.478, 3.085, 2.427, 1.679, 1.606, 1.513, 1.309,

1.165), explaining 20.74 per cent, 14.42 per cent, 8.12 per cent, 6.39 per cent, 4.42 per

cent, 4.23 per cent, 3.98 per cent, 3.45 per cent, 3.07 per cent of the variance

respectively. These nine components explained a total of 68.80 per cent of the

variance (see Appendix II).

Once the factors have been determined, the factors were then extracted and rotated as

seen in Table 5.6. Varimax rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed

presence of simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), with components showing a number

of strong loadings and most variables loading substantially on only one component.

Table 5.6: Rotated Component Matrix for nine independent variable

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SC_3 .846
SC_2 .817
SC_5 .766
SC_1 .743
I_2 .852
I_3 .850
I_1 .843
I_4 .797
VC_2 .863
VC_3 .824
VC_1 .716
VC_4 .686
PG_4 .790
PG_5 .748
PG_3 .734
PG_2 .731
PG_1 .624
PR_4 .810
PR_3 .768
PR_2 .702

53
PR_5 .630
PR_1 .615
IS_2 .817
IS_3 .796
IS_4 .782
IS_1 .629
NS_2 .825
NS_1 .820
NS_3 .645
NS_4 .602
NOVS_1 .787
NOVS_2 .732
NOVS_3 .625
NOVS_4 .544
PC_2 .830
PC_1 .802
PC_3 .554
PC_4 .431
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

5.2.4.2 Mediating Variable

Factor analysis for the mediating variable, Attitudes towards Counterfeit Products has

5 items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value in Table 5.7, is 0.824, exceeding the

recommended value of 0.6 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical

significance (p=.000), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 5.7: KMO and Bartlett's Test for the mediating variable

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy. .824

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-


705.779
Sphericity Square
Df 10
Sig. .000

54
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of one component with

eigenvalues exceeding 1 (3.382), explaining 67.64 per cent of the variance. Table 5.8

shows that the mediating items of attitude towards counterfeit products loaded on one

component.

Table 5.8: Component Matrix for the mediating variable

Component
1
ATT_1 .858
ATT_5 .824
ATT_4 .821
ATT_2 .815
ATT_3 .793
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

5.2.4.3 Dependent Variable

Factor analysis for the dependent variable, Purchase intentions (6 items) was done the

same way as other variables. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value is 0.895, exceeding the

recommended value of 0.6 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical

significance (p=.000), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 5.9: KMO and Bartlett's Test for the dependent variable

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy. .895

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi- 1227.86


Sphericity Square 0
Df 15
Sig. .000

55
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of only one component with

eigenvalues exceeding 1 (4.399) explaining 73.32 per cent of the variance. Table 5.10

shows that the dependent items of purchase intention loaded on one component.

Table 5.10: Component Matrix(a) for the dependent variable

Component
1
PI_4 .920
PI_2 .881
PI_6 .869
PI_5 .851
PI_3 .813
PI_1 .798
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

5.3 Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate analysis is the analysis between two variables. In this study, Correlation

analysis or specifically the Pearson product-moment is used because it is able to

describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables.

The sign at the front of the value indicates whether there is a positive correlation (as

one variable increases, the other variable increases) or a negative correlation (as one

variable increases, the other variable decreases). The size of the absolute value

provides an indication of the strength of the relationship. Pearson correlation

coefficients can only take values from -1 to +1.

From the Correlation table, the hypothesis derived earlier in Chapter 3, can be

assessed whether to accept the hypothesis or reject it.

56
Table 5.11: Correlation between variables

TIS TNS TPC TVC TPR TI TPG TNOVS TSC TATT TPI
TIS 1 .
TNS .193(**) 1
TPC .345(**) .077 1
TVC .401(**) .048 .389(**) 1
TPR .123(*) .063 .051 .194(**) 1
TI .242(**) -.108 .178(**) .496(**) .387(**) 1
TPG .233(**) .045 .193(**) .432(**) .234(**) .489(**) 1
TNOVS .120(*) .312(**) .011 .112 .105 .073 .292(**) 1
TSC .050 .532(**) -.053 .084 .038 -.037 .149(*) .485(**) 1
TATT .004 .259(**) .164(**) -.035 -.294(**) -.224(**) -.123(*) .110 .108 1
TPI .032 .200(**) .191(**) .035 -.295(**) -.193(**) -.057 .156(*) .149(*) .625(**) 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Note: TIS – Information Susceptibility; TNS – Normative Susceptibility; TPC – Pirce


Consciousness; TVC – Value Consciousness; TPR – Perceived Risk; TI – Integrity; TPG –
Personal Gratification; TNOVS – Novelty Seeking; TSC – Status Consumption; TATT –
Attitude towards counterfeit products; TPI – Purchase Intention

Information Susceptibility and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H1a: Information susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

The correlation analysis reveals that information susceptibility has a weak relationship

on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H1a is accepted.

Normative Susceptibility and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H1b: Normative susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

57
The correlation analysis reveals that normative susceptibility has a significant positive

relationship on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H1b is rejected.

Price Consciousness and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2a: Price consciousness has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

The correlation analysis reveals that price consciousness has a significant positive

relationship on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2a is rejected.

Value Consciousness and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2b: Value consciousness has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

The correlation analysis reveals that value consciousness has a weak relationship on

consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2b is accepted.

Perceived Risk and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2c: Perceived risk has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

The correlation analysis reveals that perceived risk has a significant negative

relationship on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2c is rejected.

58
Integrity and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2d: Integrity has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

The correlation analysis reveals that integrity has a significant negative relationship

on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2d is rejected.

Personal Gratification and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2e: Personal gratification has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

The correlation analysis reveals that personal gratification has a significant negative

relationship on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2e is rejected.

Novelty Seeking and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2f: Novelty seeking has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

The correlation analysis reveals that novelty seeking has a weak relationship on

consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2f is accepted.

Status Consumption and Attitude towards counterfeit products

H2g: Status consumption has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products.

59
The correlation analysis reveals that status consumption has a weak relationship on

consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H2g is accepted.

Attitude towards counterfeit products and Purchase Intention

H3: Consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products has no effects on

purchase intention.

The correlation analysis reveals that attitude towards counterfeit products has a

significant positive relationship on consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products.

Therefore, H3 is rejected.

Out of the ten hypotheses, four were accepted and six were rejected.

Hypothesis Result
H1a Accepted
H1b Rejected
H2a Rejected
H2b Accepted
H2c Rejected
H2d Rejected
H2e Rejected
H2f Accepted
H2g Accepted
H3 Rejected

5.4 Multivariate Analysis

The multivariate analysis is done using standard multiple regression to explore the

relationship between one dependent’s variable and a number of independents’

variables or predictors. It is able to show how well a set of variables are able to

predict a particular outcome and which variable in a set of variables is the best

predictor of an outcome.

60
In this study, multiple regressions are used to test on the nine independent variables

(information susceptibility, normative susceptibility, price consciousness, value

consciousness, perceived risk, integrity, personal gratification, novelty seeking, and

status consumption) in relation with the consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products. It is expected that the multiple regressions will provide information about

the model as a whole and the relative contribution of each variables that make up the

model.

5.4.1 Assumptions Test

Prior to performing the multiple regression tests, a few assumption tests by

Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) have to be done, namely:

• Multicollinearity

• Normality

• Outliers

• Linearity

• Homoscedasticity

• Independence of Residuals.

One way of checking the multicollinearity is by looking at the correlations table.

Multicollinearity exists when the independent variables are highly correlated (r=0.9

and above). The independent variables in the Correlation table (refer to Appendix C),

show some relationship with the independent variable by having values above 0.3 and

none is above 0.9. This indicates that the variables are not multicollinearity.

61
Normality can be checked by looking at the Histogram (Figure 5.1). The variable is

seen normal as the distribution of scores are symmetrical and bell-shaped curve,

which has the greatest frequency of scores in the middle, with smaller frequencies

towards the extremes. Normality is also checked by looking at the Normality

Probability Plot (Figure 5.2). The points lie in a reasonably straight diagonal line from

bottom left to top right. This suggests no major deviations from normality.

Outliers can be detected from the Scatterplot (Figure 5.3). Outliers are cases that have

a standardized residual of more than 3.3 or less than -3.3. This is not seen in the

Scatterplot, which indicates that there are no outliers.

Linearity, Homoscedasticity and Independence of Residuals are checked by looking at

the Scatterplot of the standardized residuals (Figure 5.3). The residuals are seen

roughly rectangularly distributed, with most scores concentrated in the centre (along

the 0 point). This is good and does not violate the assumptions.

62
Figure 5.1: Histogram of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit
products

Figure 5.2: Normal Probability Plot of Regression Standardized Residual of


Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit products

63
Figure 5.3: Scatterplot of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit
products

5.4.2 Standard Multiple Regression

The result of regression is an equation that represents the best prediction of a

dependent variable from several independent variables.

Evaluating the model

The value given in the column R Square, in Table 5.13, tells how much of the

variance in the dependent variable (Attitude towards counterfeit products) is

explained by the model.

Table 5.12: Model Summary of Attitude towards counterfeit products

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


1 .465(a) .217 .189 5.94733
a Predictors: (Constant), Status Consumption, Integrity, Price Consciousness, Perceived Risk,
Information Susceptibility, Novelty Seeking, Personal Gratification, Normative Susceptibility, Value
Consciousness
b Dependent Variable: Attitude

64
A total of nine independent variables together explain 21.7% variance (R square) of

consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products.

Evaluating each of the independent variables

The values in the Beta column under Standardised Coefficients in Table 5.13, show

which of the variables, contributed to the prediction of the dependent variable. The

largest Beta value (ignoring the negative and positive signs) means that the variable

makes the strongest contribution to explain the dependent variable.

Table 5.13: Coefficients of Dependent Variable: Attitude towards counterfeit


products

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.


Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 22.722 3.412 6.659 .000
Information Susceptibility -.089 .094 -.060 -.948 .344
Normative Susceptibility .304 .080 .258 3.805 .000(**)
Price Consciousness .304 .096 .197 3.178 .002(*)
Value Consciousness .050 .125 .029 .398 .691
Perceived Risk -.343 .076 -.272 -4.529 .000(**)
Integrity -.161 .126 -.093 -1.281 .201
Personal Gratification -.140 .108 -.088 -1.296 .196
Novelty Seeking .172 .094 .120 1.834 .068(*)
Status Consumption -.061 .079 -.056 -.775 .439

** Significant at 0.01 level


*Significant at 0.1 level

Look upon the Standardized Beta Coeffiecient column to see which of the variables

that are making a significant unique contribution or in other words, to see which of

the variable makes the strongest contribution in explaining the dependent variable

when the variance explained by all other variables in the model is controlled for. The

largest Beta is -0.272 (ignoring any negative signs out the front), that belongs to

Perceived Risk, followed by Normative Susceptibility with 0.258, Price

65
Consciousness with 0.197 and Novelty Seeking with 0.120. Only these four

independent variables are making a statistically significant unique contribution to the

equation, as the maximum acceptable Sig. value is less than 0.1. The other six

independent variables have a significant value of more than 0.1 concluding that the

variables are not making a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the

dependent variable.

To come up with an equation for the model, the B value under column

Unstandardized Coefficients is taken. It is seen that Normative Susceptibility and

Price Consciousness, Value Consciousness and Novelty seeking have a positive

relationship towards the dependent variable. Informative Susceptibility, Perceived

Risk, Integrity, Personal Gratification and Status Consumption have a negative

relationship towards the dependent variable, however only four of the variables have

an acceptable significant values which are Normative Susceptibility, Price

consciousness, Perceived Risk and Novelty Seeking.

From the findings shown in Table 5.13, the regression equation is stated as follows:

*Attitude = 22.72 + .304 (normative susceptibility) + .304 (price

consciousness) + -.343 (perceived risk) + .172 (novelty seeking)

*Attitude towards counterfeit products

When comparing the B value of all independent variables, normative susceptibility

and price consciousness have the largest significant positive relationship with

consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products, both with 0.304 B value, followed

66
by novelty seeking with 0.172. On the other hand, perceived risk has the largest

significant negative relationship with consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products with -0.343 B value.

The B value indicates that 1 unit increase in normative susceptibility will result in

0.304 increases in consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products.

5.4.3 Sobel Test

Sobel test is developed to test whether a mediator carries the influence of an

independent variable to a dependent variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Goodman,

1960; MacKinnon et al., 1995). These tests will check whether the indirect effects of

independent variable in dependent variable (i.e. via mediator) are significantly

different from zero.

The tests were conducted by using a web-based online calculator with the input value

of coefficient and standard error for the path of independent variable – mediator and

mediator – dependent variable.

Table 5.14: Sobel/ Aroian/ Goodman tests of mediating effects

Coefficients Standard Error


Factors Attitudes 0.579 0.122
Attitudes Purchase Intention 0.765 0.058
Test Statistics Sig.
Sobel test 4.466 0.00
Aroian test 4.454 0.00
Goodman test 4.477 0.00

67
From Table 5.14, the result shows that consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products has significantly affected the relationship between the independent variables

(social and personality factors) and the dependent variable (purchase intention).

5.5 Summary

This chapter has presented the result of the analysis done from the data obtained.

After the factor analysis, the original scale with nine components remains as nine

components. The hypotheses postulated in Chapter 3, were tested by Pearson

correlation. Out of the ten null hypotheses, four were supported and accepted, six

were rejected. Then, through multiple regressions, Normative Susceptibility, Price

Consciousness, Novelty Seeking and Perceived Risk were found to be dominant thus

is part of the regression equation. Finally, the Sobel test has confirmed that the

mediator variable (attitude towards counterfeit products) carries the influence of the

independent variables to a dependent variable (purchase intention). In the next

chapter, the result in this chapter is discussed in greater depth and length.

68
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3:

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER 4:

RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 5:
• Introduction
RESULTS AND FINDINGS • Discussion of the research
result
• Contribution of the study
CHAPTER 6: • Managerial Implication
• Research Limitation
CONCLUSION AND • Recommendation for future
RECOMMENDATION
research
• Summary

69
6.0 Introduction

In the previous chapter, results based on specific analyses were presented. Out of

which, four hypotheses were accepted and six were rejected. Through regression

analysis, a regression equation was derived. Finally yet importantly, the Sobel test had

managed to confirm the mediating role of consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products. The contents of this chapter will discuss the mentioned findings, along with

the contributions of this study, the managerial implications, the limitations, and

recommendations for future research.

6.1 Discussion of the research result

The research question that was highlighted in Chapter 1 would guide the discussion of

this study’s findings.

1. How do the social and personality factors influence consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products?

The researcher had chosen to do the Pearson correlation between each independent

variables and consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products. Four out of the ten

hypotheses were accepted and six were rejected. Table 6.1 lists a summary of the 10

hypotheses the result.

Table 6.1: Summary of hypotheses and the result

Hypotheses Result
H1a: Information susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ Accepted
attitude towards counterfeit products.
H1b: Normative susceptibility has no effects on consumers’ Rejected
attitude towards counterfeit products.
H2a: Price consciousness has no effects on consumers’ attitude Rejected
towards counterfeit products.

70
H2b: Value consciousness has no effects on consumers’ Accepted
attitude towards counterfeit products.
H2c: Perceived risk has no effects on consumers’ attitude Rejected
towards counterfeit products.
H2d: Integrity has no effects on consumers’ attitude towards Rejected
counterfeit products.
H2e: Personal gratification has no effects on consumers’ Rejected
attitude towards counterfeit products.
H2f: Novelty seeking has no effects on consumers’ attitude Accepted
towards counterfeit products.
H2g: Status consumption has no effects on consumers’ attitude Accepted
towards counterfeit products.
H3: Consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit product has no Rejected
effects on purchase intention.

The null hypotheses of informative susceptibility, value consciousness, novelty

seeking and status consumption was accepted, meaning that these factors had no

effects on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products.

Hypothesis of normative susceptibility was rejected. It has a significant positive

relationship with attitude. This means that consumers with high normative

susceptibility would act favourable towards counterfeit products.

Hypothesis of price consciousness was rejected. It has a significant positive

relationship with attitude. This means that consumers with high price consciousness

would act favourable towards counterfeit products. The result is supported by the

finding of Huang et al. (2004)

Hypothesis of perceived risk was rejected. It has a significant negative relationship

with attitude. This means that consumers with high-perceived risk would act

unfavourable towards counterfeit products. The result is supported by the finding of

De Matos et al. (2007)

71
Hypothesis of integrity was rejected. It has a significant negative relationship with

attitude. This means that consumers with high integrity would act unfavourable

towards counterfeit products. The result is supported by the findings of Phau and Teah

(2007) and De Matos et al. (2007).

Hypothesis of personal gratification was rejected. It has a significant negative

relationship with attitude. This means that consumers with high personal gratification

would act favourable towards counterfeit products. The result is supported by the

finding of De Matos et al. (2007)

Lastly, H3 hypothesized that consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products has no

effects on purchase intention. The hypothesis was rejected. It has a significant positive

relationship, meaning that consumer’s attitude has effects on purchase intention. If the

consumers’ attitude is favourable towards counterfeit products then they will purchase

the counterfeit. If the consumers’ attitude is unfavourable towards counterfeit

products then they will not purchase the counterfeit. This result corresponds to the

findings of past research (Phau and Teah, 2009; De Matos et al., 2007; Huang et al.,

2004). It is evident that consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products play an

important role in leading or driving the consumer purchase intention.

2. What is the impact of consumers’ attitude towards purchase intention?

The Sobel test was used to test whether the mediator variable (consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products) carries the influence of an independent variable to the

dependent variable (purchase intention). The result shows that consumers’ attitude

towards counterfeit products has a significant impact on purchase intention.

72
This means that the consumers’ attitude of whether they are in favour or not in favour

of counterfeit products affects the consumer’s purpose or objective to purchase

counterfeit products.

3. What are the dominant factors influencing consumers’ attitude towards

counterfeit products, which leads to purchase intention?

Standard multiple regressions were used to determine the dominant variables that

influences consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products. It is found that normative

susceptibility, price consciousness and novelty seeking, contributed significantly

positive influence on consumers’ attitude. Perceived risk on the other hand,

contributed to a significant negative influence on consumers’ attitude.

The result indicates that consumers in Malaysia are very likely to consider other

people’s opinions and thoughts when buying a particular product. The consumers feel

that it is important that others like the products and brands that they buy. They want to

make a good impression on others and would often purchase the brand that others

expect them to buy.

The consumers seems to be equivalently price conscious, meaning that they purchase

products based on the price that is offered, normally going after the less expensive

products. Price conscious consumer tends to buy items that are on sale or bargains,

which usually are cheap.

73
The consumers are to an extent novelty seeker, which means they like to keep up with

fashion and trends. They like to be the first to try out new products and they get

excited in purchasing interesting, unique products.

Perceived risk is dominant and the only factor contributing to a significant negative

influence on consumers’ attitude. It is pleasing to know that consumers do think of the

risks involved if they were to purchase counterfeit products. There are some

consumers who thinks that spending money on counterfeit products is not wise and

would even make them feel unhappy or frustrated, and some thinks about the negative

effects of what others think if they were to be caught buying counterfeit products.

6.2 Contribution of the study

This study is conducted based on past research of Phau and Teah (2009), De Matos et

al. (2007) and Huang et al. (2004). Each of the research was done in a different

country with different setting such as different behaviour and different culture of

consumers. This study contributes in enabling others to understand the attitudes of

consumers in Malaysia.

The study has verified that the intention to purchase a counterfeit product is very

much reliant on the attitude that the consumers have towards counterfeit products.

These attitudes were strongly influenced by perceived risk, normative susceptibility

and price consciousness and novelty seeking. The result differs from the past research

(Phau and Teah, 2009; De Matos et al., 2007; Huang et al, 2004), but it is acceptable

due to the nature of the study with its own set of setting.

74
The outcome of this study can be used as reference and knowledge in the educational

institution. Moreover, the findings can be beneficial to the manufacturers and

marketers of branded genuine products in understanding the consumers’ behaviour or

attitude towards counterfeit products.

6.3 Managerial Implication

From the result in Chapter 5, it is found that both social factor (normative

susceptibility) and personality factor (price consciousness, novelty seeking and

perceived risk) have significant impact on consumers’ purchase intention towards

counterfeit products. Manufacturers and marketers of genuine products in Malaysia

must keep in mind of these factors and use it to their advantage.

Manufacturers and marketers can work to change consumers’ behaviour through

shaping attitudes and beliefs with strategies such as below:

• Normative susceptibility – these consumers care about what other people think

of them because they want to make a good impression of themselves. They

buy products that they feel others expect them to buy.

Since the consumers are concerned about what other people think of them, the

marketers should directly address counterfeit issue in advertising programs.

Emphasize the importance of buying the ‘real thing’ and that if they buy the

counterfeit version, it means that the consumers do not think highly of

themselves. Another strategy is to use celebrity endorsers, as consumers with

75
high normative susceptibility like to purchase the same product and brand of

someone they like or admire.

 Price – these consumers only want products that are not expensive if not those

that are on sale.

The manufacturer should try to consider lowering their price through the

introduction of brand extensions and special licensed products. Else, perhaps

encourage consumers to purchase by introducing a membership card that

awards the consumers’ privileges such as huge discounts after a number of

purchases, or points of the consumer were to bring family and friends as

customers.

 Novelty seeking – these consumers seeks variety and difference.

Manufacturer of genuine branded products should differentiate their products

by emphasizing style, design, quality and appearance differences. Create

products that would have the consumer eager of owning and that they will not

be able to wait for the counterfeiters to produce and sell. Perhaps, it creates

limited number of products, thus, the consumer who bought it will feel grand

and one of a kind.

 Perceived risk – these consumers seek to reduce uncertainty and unfavourable

consequences when making a purchase.

76
Marketers should highlight their genuine products is of superior quality,

functionality and reliability, and if they are really confident of their products,

warranties are issued or if for some reason the customer is not satisfied, have a

guarantee that they will serve the customer till they are satisfied. Marketers

can capture the consumers who have high-perceived risk of counterfeit

products by stressing their after-sale services. After all, the after-sale services

are something that would differentiate their genuine products from the

counterfeits.

It is with hope that in time, the suggestions mentioned would be able to lessen the

purchases of counterfeit products among consumers in Malaysia.

6.4 Research Limitation

A few limitations have been identified throughout the study:

• Time limitation and resource constraints have led to limited geographical area

being covered in the study. Utilizing the survey results gathered within the

Klang Valley and generalizing it across the Malaysian population may not be

convincing. To achieve the general objective, studies should be done in other

parts of Malaysia.

• Factors such as product involvement, perceived benefit, price quality

inference, brand image and more were not included in the study. As such, its

effects and influences on consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit products are

unknown.

77
• There was no predetermined indication as to what constitute a counterfeit

product for this particular survey to the respondents. Different categories of

products have its own set of variables for measurement.

• Counterfeit issue is a sensitive subject. Getting respondents to voluntary

participate in answering the questionnaire was a challenge as for some fear

that their image reputation or status will be affected.

6.5 Recommendation for future research

A number of recommendations that can be considered and done for future research:

• Sample selection should be distributed more evenly rather than concentrating

on one particular area. The result will be more representative and convincing.

• Other variables should be looked upon, as there is no finite and definite

measurement of determining consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit

products.

• Clear, specific indication of the product categories that can be constituted as

counterfeit products should be highlighted, thus taken into judgment and

deliberation by the consumers.

6.6 Summary

This study has made a significant contribution to the academicians, marketers, and

manufacturers of branded genuine goods and the industry as a whole. It has found that

normative susceptibility, price consciousness, novelty seeking and perceived risk to

be dominant in influencing consumers to purchase counterfeit products through the

mediation of attitude. From the theoretical perspective, it is an extension of

78
knowledge of consumers concerning counterfeit products. However, for the marketers

and manufacturers of genuine branded products, the findings can serve as a reference

in developing better marketing strategies to entice the consumers to purchase genuine

products and not the counterfeit version. Knowing that attitude plays a role in

determining the purchase intention of a customer, manufacturers and marketers can

work on finding ways to change consumers’ attitudes and beliefs.

79
BIBLIOGRAPHY

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.

Alcock, L., Chen, P., Ch’ng, H.M. and Hodson, S. (2003), “Counterfeiting: tricks and

trends”, Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-6.

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.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction

in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

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.

Bian X, Moutinho L. (2008), “An investigation of determinants of counterfeit

purchase consideration”, J Bus Res.

Bian X, Veloutsou C. (2007), “Consumers' attitudes regarding non-deceptive

counterfeit brands in the UK and China” J Brand Management ;14(3):211–22

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.

80
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.

Bucklin, L.P. (1993), “Modeling the international gray market for public policy

decisions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 387-

405.

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.

Chadha, R. (2007), “From Mao suits to Armani”, Advertising Age, Vol. 78 No. 2, p.

27.

Chakravarti A, Janiszewski C. (2003), “The influence of macro-level motives on

consideration set composition in novel purchase situations”, J Consum Res

30(2):244–58 (September).

Chang, M.K. (1998), “Predicting unethical behaviour: a comparison of the theory of

reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics,

Vol. 17, pp. 1825-34.

Chang, T.-Z. (1993), “Parallel importation in Taiwan: a view from a newly emerged

country and a comparative analysis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 6,

pp. 30-41.

Chaudhry PE,Walsh MG. (1996), “An assessment of the impact of counterfeiting in

international markets: the piracy paradox persists”, Columbia J World Bus. 31(3):34–

49 (Fall).

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.

81
Cheung, W.L. and Prendergast, G. (2006), “Buyers’ perceptions of pirated products in

China”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 446-62.

Chow, D.C.K. (2000), “Enforcement against counterfeiting in the People’s Republic

of China”, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 20 No. 3, p.

447.

Clark, D. (2006), “Counterfeiting in China: a blueprint for change”, The China

Business Review, January/February, p. 14.

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.

De Castro, J.O., Balkin, D.B. and Shepherd, D.A. (2007), “Knock-off or knockout?”,

Business Strategy Review, Vol. Spring, pp. 28-32.

De Matos, C.A., Ituassu, C.T. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2007), “Consumer attitudes toward

counterfeits: a review and extension”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1,

pp. 36-47.

Dholakia UM. (1998), “Involvement–response models of joint effects: an empirical

test and extension”, Adv Consum Res. 25(1):499–506.

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.

Eastman, J.K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D. and Calvert, S. (1997), “The

relationship between status consumption and materialism: a cross-cultural comparison

of Chinese, Mexican, and American students”, Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, Winter.

82
Eisend, M. and Schuchert-Gu¨ ler, P. (2006), “Explaining counterfeit purchases: a

review and preview”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2006 No. 12. pp.

1-26

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An

Introduction to Theory of Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Furnham, A. and Valgeirsson H., (2007), “The effect of life values and materialism on

buying counterfeit products”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, No. 36 pp. 677–685.

Gentry, J.W., Putrevu, S. and Shultz, C.J. II (2006), “The effects of counterfeiting on

consumer search”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 245-56.

Gentry, J.W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C., Commuri, S. (2001), ” How now Ralph Lauren?

The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture”, Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol 28, No. 258–265.

Goodman, L. A. (1960). “On the exact variance of products”, Journal of the American

Statistical Association, 55, 708-713.

Grossman, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1988), “Foreign counterfeiting of status goods”,

Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, pp. 79-100.

Gupta, P.B., Gould, S.J. and Pola, B. (2004), “‘To pirate or not to pirate?’ A

comparative study of the ethical versus other influences on the consumer’s software

acquisition mode decision”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, pp. 255-74.

Harvey MG, Ronkainen IA. (1985), “International counterfeiters: marketing success

without the cost and the risk”, Columbia J World Bus. 20(3):37–45 (Fall).

Harvey PJ, Walls WD. (2003), “The revealed demand for pirate goods: probit analysis

of experimental data”, Int J Manag. 20(2):194–201.

Havlena, W.J. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1991), “On the measurement of perceived

consumer risk”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 927-39.

83
Hawkins, D.I., Coney, K.A. and Best, R.J. (1980), Consumer Behavior: Implications

for Marketing Strategy, Business Publications, Dallas, TX.

Hoe, L., Hogg, G. and Hart, S. (2003), “Fakin’ it: counterfeiting and consumer

contradictions”, in Turley, D. and Brown, S. (Eds), European Advances in Consumer

Research, 6th ed., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 60-7.

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.

Hung, C.L. (2003), “The business of product counterfeiting in China and the post-

WTO membership environment”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.

58-77.

International Anticounterfeiting Coalition (2005), “Facts on fakes”, available at:

www.iacc.org/Facts.html

International Intellectual Property Institute (2003), “Counterfeit goods and the

public’s health and safety”, available at: www.iacc.org/IIPI.pdf

Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L. (1972), “Components of perceived risk”, Proceedings of the

Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, pp. 382-93.

Janiszewski, C. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (1999), “A range theory account of price

perception”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, March, pp. 353-68.

Kay, H. (1990), “Fake’s progress”, Management Today, July, pp. 54-8.

Kwong, K.K., Yau, O.H.M., Lee, J.S.Y., Sin, L.Y.M. and Tse, A.C.B. (2003), “The

effects of attitudinal and demographic factors on intention to buy pirated CDs: the

case of Chinese consumers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 223-35.

Lai, K.K.Y. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1999), “Brand imitation: do the Chinese have

different views?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 179-92.

84
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and Burton, S. (1990), “Distinguishing coupon

proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory

perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 54-67.

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.

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated

effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41-62.

Miniard, P.W. and Cohen, J.B. (1983), “Modeling personal and normative influences

on behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2.

Mitchell, V.M. (1998), “A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing”,

British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 171-83.

Nill, A. and Shultz, C.J. II (1996), “The scourge of global counterfeiting”, Business

Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 37-43.

Penz, E. and Sto¨ ttinger, B. (2005), “Forget the ‘real’ thing – take the copy! An

explanatory model for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products”, Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 568-75.

Phau I, Prendergast G, Chuen LH. (2001), “Profiling brand-piracy-prone consumers:

an exploratory study in hong kong's clothing industry”, J Fash Mark Manag. 5 (1):45–

55.

Phau, I., and Teah, M. (2009), “Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of

antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands”, Journal

of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-27.

85
Prendergast, G., Chuen, L.H. and Phau, I. (2002), “Understanding consumer demand

for non-deceptive pirated brands”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 20 No. 7,

pp. 405-16.

Rajendran, K.N. and Tellis, G.J. (1994), “Contextual and temporal components of

reference price”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 22-34.

Roselius, E. (1971), “Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 56-61.

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1997), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Shultz II CJ, Saporito B. (1996), “Protecting intellectual property: strategies and

recommendations to deter counterfeiting and brand piracy in global markets”,

Columbia J World Bus. 31(1):18–28 (Spring).

Sonmez, M. and Yang, D. (2005), “Manchester United versus China: a counterfeiting

and trademark match”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 10, pp. 1-18.

Steenhaut, S. and van Kenhove, P. (2006), “An empirical investigation of the

relationships among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical

beliefs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64, pp. 137-55.

Tellis, G.J. and Gaeth, G.J. (1990), “Best value, priceseeking, and price aversion: the

impact of information and learning on consumer choices”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.

54, April, pp. 34-45.

Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y. and Pilcher, J. (1998), “Consumer demand for

counterfeit goods”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 405-21.

Trainer, T.P. (2002), “The fight against trademark counterfeiting”, The China

Business Review, November/ December, pp. 21-4.

86
Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H. and Ouyang, M. (2005), “Purchasing pirated software:

an initial examination of Chinese consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.

22 No. 6, pp. 340-51.

Wee C, Tan SJ, Cheok KH. (1995), “Non-price determinants of intention to purchase

counterfeit goods”, Int Mark Rev. 12(6):19–47.

Weigand, R.E. (1991), “Parallel import channels – options for preserving territorial

integrity”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 53-60.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1984), "Issues in Conceptualizing and Measuring Consumer

Response to Price," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11.

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.

87
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE
Instruction: Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by marking (X)
in the box provided below: -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Slightly Not sure Slightly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

Section A – Information susceptibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I observe what others are buying and using before buying a
product
If I have little experience with a product, I ask around

I consult other people to help choose the best alternative


available from a product class
I gather information from friends or family about a product
before I buy

Section B – Normative susceptibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


It is important that others like the products and brands I buy

If other people see me using a product, I often purchase the


brand they expect me to buy
I like to know what brands and products make good impressions
on others
If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands
that they buy

Section C – Price quality inference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


The old saying “you get what you pay for” is generally true

The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality

You always have to pay a bit more for the best

Generally speaking, the higher the price of a product, the higher


the quality

Section D – Value consciousness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I am concerned about price and product quality

I compare prices for the best value for money

I like to be sure that I get my money worth

I try to maximize the quality for the money spent

Section E – Risk averseness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I do not like to take risks

I like to gamble on things

I like to live life on the edge

I like to be sure the product is good before buying it

I don’t like to feel uncertain when I buy something

I would rather be safe than sorry

Section F – Perceived risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

88
The risk that I take when I buy a counterfeit product is high

There is high probability that the product doesn’t work

Spending money with counterfeit products might not be wise

Buying counterfeit products make me feel unhappy/frustrated

If I buy counterfeit products, it may negatively affect what


others think of me

Section G – Integrity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I value honesty

I value politeness

I value responsibility

I value self control

Section H – Personal gratification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


A comfortable life is important to me

An exciting life is important to me

A sense of accomplishment is important to me

I value pleasure

I value social recognition

Section I – Novelty seeking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I am always one of the firsts to try new products

I am excited to purchase some interesting products

I own a lot of popular products

I keep up with fashion

Section J – Status consumption 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I am interested in new products with status

I would buy a product just because it has status

I would pay more for a product if it had status

The status of a product is irrelevant to me

A product is more valuable to me if it has ‘high status’ appeal

Section K – Attitudes towards counterfeit products 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Part I – Social consequences
Buying counterfeit products infringes intellectual property

Buying counterfeit products will hurt the luxury goods industry

Buying counterfeit products damages rights of legitimate


Manufacturer
Purchasing counterfeit products is illegal

89
Section K – Attitudes towards counterfeit products 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Part I – Perceptions of counterfeit products
Counterfeit products are as reliable as the genuine products

Counterfeit products have similar quality to the genuine


products
Counterfeit products provided similar functions to the genuine
products
Considering price, I prefer counterfeit products

Section L – Purchase intentions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


I would think about a counterfeit products as a choice when
buying something
I will buy counterfeit products

I will consider purchasing counterfeit products for a friend

I would recommend counterfeit products to friends and family

I will buy counterfeit products from peddlers

I would say favorable things about counterfeit products

Section M – Respondent profile


Instruction: Please tick (√) for the answer and fill in the blanks when necessary

1. Gender
Male Female

2. Age
Below 21 years 21 - 30 years 31 - 40 years
41 – 50 years 51 - 60 years Above 60 years

3. Citizenship
Malaysian Others (please specify) ____________________

4. Ethnic group
Malay Chinese
Indian Others (please specify) ____________________

5. Marital status
Single Married Divorced / Widow

6. Highest level of education


SPM Diploma
Bachelor Degree Post Graduate Degree

7. Occupation
Professional Executive Self-employed
Top Management Clerical / Admin Not working
Managers Student Retiree

8. Monthly income

90
Below RM2,000 RM2,000 - RM4,000 RM4,001 – RM6,000
RM6,001 - RM8,000 RM8,001 - RM10,000 RM10,001 and above

9. What is your favorite expensive brand?


____________________

10. What is your favorite shopping mall?


____________________

11. Why do you purchase branded products?

Please rank 1 to 7 in the column below, with number 1 as the most important reason and 7 the least important
reason in purchasing branded products
Quality
Prestige
Image
Social influence
Design
Style
Others (please specify) __________

12. How much price difference between original and counterfeit product is good for you?
(Assuming the price is reflecting the quality of the counterfeit products)
Below RM 100 RM 101 - RM 300
RM 301 - RM 500 RM 501 and above

13. If you have ever bought a counterfeit product, what are they and what brand?
(e.g. Watch, Tag Heur )
1. ______________________________
2. ______________________________
3. ______________________________

~ Thank you for your time and cooperation ~

91
APPENDIX B – HISTOGRAM

Informative Susceptibility

Normative Susceptibility

92
Price Consciousness

Value Consciousness

93
Perceived Risk

Integrity

94
Personal Gratification

Novelty Seeking

95
Status Consumption

Attitude towards counterfeit product

96
Purchase Intention

97
APPENDIX C – CORRELATION TABLE

IS NS PC VC PR I PG NOVS SC ATT PI
IS P. Correlation 1 .193(**) .345(**) .401(**) .123(*) .242(**) .233(**) .120(*) .050 .004 .032
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .044 .000 .000 .048 .416 .942 .599
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
NS P. Correlation .193(**) 1 .077 .048 .063 -.108 .045 .312(**) .532(**) .259(**) .200(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .205 .428 .304 .077 .458 .000 .000 .000 .001
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
PC P. Correlation .345(**) .077 1 .389(**) .051 .178(**) .193(**) .011 -.053 .164(**) .191(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .205 .000 .407 .003 .001 .864 .382 .007 .002
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
VC P. Correlation .401(**) .048 .389(**) 1 .194(**) .496(**) .432(**) .112 .084 -.035 .035
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .428 .000 .001 .000 .000 .065 .171 .570 .572
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
PR P. Correlation .123(*) .063 .051 .194(**) 1 .387(**) .234(**) .105 .038 -.294(**) -.295(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .044 .304 .407 .001 .000 .000 .086 .535 .000 .000
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
I P. Correlation .242(**) -.108 .178(**) .496(**) .387(**) 1 .489(**) .073 -.037 -.224(**) -.193(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .077 .003 .000 .000 .000 .233 .541 .000 .001
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
PG P. Correlation .233(**) .045 .193(**) .432(**) .234(**) .489(**) 1 .292(**) .149(*) -.123(*) -.057
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .458 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .014 .044 .351
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
NOVS P. Correlation .120(*) .312(**) .011 .112 .105 .073 .292(**) 1 .485(**) .110 .156(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) .048 .000 .864 .065 .086 .233 .000 .000 .070 .010
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
SC P. Correlation .050 .532(**) -.053 .084 .038 -.037 .149(*) .485(**) 1 .108 .149(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) .416 .000 .382 .171 .535 .541 .014 .000 .075 .014
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
ATT P. Correlation .004 .259(**) .164(**) -.035 -.294(**) -.224(**) -.123(*) .110 .108 1 .625(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .942 .000 .007 .570 .000 .000 .044 .070 .075 .000
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
PI P. Correlation .032 .200(**) .191(**) .035 -.295(**) -.193(**) -.057 .156(*) .149(*) .625(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .599 .001 .002 .572 .000 .001 .351 .010 .014 .000
N 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

98